N And Omega

N and Ω a semi-classical unified theory of elementary particles based on the qualities of space-time salvatore gerard micheal

1

About the book: this book is intended for a general audience interested in science, physics, or unification physics. It is intended to be readable and enjoyable. The author frequently makes fun of science, physics, and himself – so please read with an open mind! About the author: sg micheal was formally educated in statistics, psychology, and systems science at Michigan State University. He also has graduate level education in nuclear, mechanical, and electrical engineering from various other institutions. He has written several books on physics and systems. About the theory: this theory has been developing for about twenty-five years in fits-and-starts. It has matured to a point in need – to reach a broader audience. It is not sophisticated mathematically but based on an engineering perspective – with elements rooted in established and accepted engineering principles. About the title: N is for newton, the SI unit of force; Ω is for ohm, the SI unit of resistance. Z0, the impedance of space, has units in ohms; Y0, the elasticity of space, has units in newtons. Other than dimensionality, these are the only two qualities of space-time.

2

Contents: page 01-02: cover page 03: Contents page 04: Chapter One – Background page 09: Chapter Two – Convention’s Approach page 12: Chapter Three – A Decisive Test page 16: Chapter Four – The Core Equations page 26: Chapter Five – An Intuitive Description page 31: Chapter Six – The Systems Approach page 36: Chapter Seven – The Website page 46: Chapter Eight – Uncertainty, Part One page 51: Chapter Nine – Uncertainty, Part Two page 56: Chapter Ten – The Source of Uncertainty page 64: Chapter Eleven – Energy Distribution page 76: Chapter Twelve – Eulogy/Christening

3

Chapter One – Background Science should be about the pursuit of truth and understanding nature – our universe. But it has become more about “paying dues” and defense of one core principle – more than anything else. That core principle is reduction. And “paying dues” means endorsing some conventionally accepted idea, doing years of research “proving” it, and receiving recognition for it. Physics has become an agglomeration of disparate, many times conflicting, ideas that have been generated in this pay-duesreduction machine. One great scientific principle, Occam’s Razor, has survived – but in reality, they only pay lip service to it. Occam’s Razor states – among proposed ideas in science (those that try to explain natural phenomena) – the simplest idea that requires the least number of assumptions tends to be the correct one. Occam’s Razor cuts away the fat of incorrect ideas – arriving at the meat of truth. That’s the way it’s supposed to be.. Instead of a razor, science has become an enormous blender or meat grinder – where all kinds of bits meaninglessness go in: Casimir farce, virtually undetectable particles, the Higgs bozo.. What comes out is “golden” or something else? The core principle that was generated is the idea that very small bits of matter, elementary particles, are in reality – multi-state random waves. Random waves of what? Energy? Random waves in what? Space-time? “Science” does not want to say – because it would be extending itself, violating Occam’s Razor. Instead, “science” has created an enormous mathematical artifice purporting veracity based on complexity and elitism. “I went to Stanford/Harvard. Doesn’t that make me right?” “I kissed your ass for twenty-five years. Shouldn’t you pay me some respect now?” Conventionalists, cons for short, will 4

dismiss this with a wave of a hand saying “most developments come from non-Ivy League institutions”. That may be true, but it’s the same as saying elitist snobbery knows no bounds. Cons will try to sell you something you don’t need or violates your belief system. They do it by tricking you into believing their math is perfect, every assumption is the best possible and most reasonable, and that every dollar spent is an investment in the future. Is there really any difference between a conman and a conventional physicist – aside from education? Look at Niels Bohr. He’s a perfect example. He publicly argued with Einstein because of a differing belief system – not hardcore evidence against Einstein. Einstein was a man of faith. He saw the genius of the Divine in his equations. Bohr was a hardcore atheist and libertine. His favorite saying was “there is no God”. Of course a bunch of elitist snobs would welcome Bohr over Einstein – it gave them license to do whatever they wanted. Besides atheism and liberty, Bohr also pushed the random wave concept. So “science” became deluded and sidetracked based on a hidden desire for freedom. In my searches of the internet, I have found only one group of physicists who subscribe to a rational deterministic perspective of elementary particles. Their publications can be found at commonsensescience.org. I believe their electro-dynamic model of e.p.s is complementary to my elastic-space model. But they rejected my proposal to integrate: Sam, I had time only for a brief review of your paper. I reject the proposal that space is an elastic medium. My approach to describing the physical universe is incompatible with the assumption that space is a physical entity. Dave Bergman 5

It’s unfortunate. I believe an integration of the two models, an electro-dynamic-elastic-space model, would be the minimal sufficient model to explain e.p.s, their interactions, nuclei, atoms, and molecules – in other words, all matter in the universe. From my calculations, space is not that elastic; perhaps their master equations can incorporate elasticity without much ado. The reason we need elasticity is to explain the origins of curved space-time, gravitation, and the strong force between nuclei. From my view, they’re all the same thing. It’s also unfortunate the scientists at commonsensescience.org are so verbose about their faith. “This inconsistency in modern science is incompatible with a Judeo-Christian world view of consistency where expediency is rejected and contradictions are never allowed.” (from their website on contradictions in science) They return to a religious perspective from time-totime – occasionally injecting a religious comment in their text. Science does not need faith – science stands on its own. I agree that a holistic/systems perspective is required to understand elementary particles and fundamental processes. But we don’t need to say “God” in every article to remind readers God is in everything; God is simply in everything. God will reveal Itself in due time. Pushing God only excludes people. I’ve tried to be open-minded about every theory I meet. Can the same be said for the scientists I meet? I doubt it. Dismissexclude dismiss-exclude – that’s the “welcome” I get from conventional scientists. arXiv.org, a famous internet repository for scientific articles, won’t let me publish there because you have to publish in a refereed journal first. Refereed journals won’t publish me because I’m too “speculative” (even when I 6

reference every equation). The most “encouraging” comment I ever got for any of my ideas was the comment “interesting” in reference to my charge-spin equivalence equation. I know I’m not Einstein; I will never be Einstein; I can never be Einstein. (Even Einstein was dismissed in his later years – for trying to do what I’ve tried to do.) But just because I’m nobody – does that justify dismissal and auto-rejection of an idea that is perhaps more important than E = mc2? The core equation in my theory is Y0lPX = Z0e2ωe. It means: elastic energy in space-time (which is mass) is impeded spinning electrical energy. Implicit in the equation is the fundamental importance of the dual-quality of space-time: elasticity-impedance. That’s why the title of this book is N and Ω. Richard Feynman was a universally respected and admired physicist. He developed a path-integral formulation of quantum mechanics. He called it* jokingly QED (for quantum electrodynamics). QED is used in math to end a proof (a Latin abbreviation of the same meaning). He joked that it was a “theory to end all theories”. But the problem was that he was taken too seriously. His joke became a core-pillar of physics. Again, his math is not the problem – it’s simply a distraction from the erroneous assumption of virtual shielding. He claimed a cloud of virtual photons shields all electrons causing the infamous charge deficit. *note: path-integral QM and QED are not actually the same I was able to generate three very different possible causes for charge deficit. They’re all deterministic in nature. I have tentatively accepted my third proposal in order to write this book. Otherwise, I would have to employ an “≈” and no one is ever happy to use one of those (except engineers;). 7

Must I butt heads wherever I go? Physicists reject me because I borrow concepts from engineering which are automatically dismissed as unimportant (Z0 is just a calculation – it has no physical relevance). Engineers reject me because the ideas I propose seem to have no relevancy to their domain (a Plancksized object? Immeasurable!). But because of my largely mathematical formal training, I have a tendency to try to create elegant concepts. Elegance in science/engineering is something beautiful, simple, and functional. Einstein discovered an elegant relation between mass and energy. No wonder he saw the Divine in his equations. Do I? It’s not the same feeling for me.. When I discovered spin-charge equivalence, there was a giddy feeling of discovering something fundamental. But I don’t see the Divine in my core equation – I simply see an elegant universe: if we accept my core premise that space-time is elastic, there are only two things in this universe – space and energy. Matter in all its forms, including life, is simply an elegant arrangement of those two things.

8

Chapter Two – Convention’s Approach The rational reason conventional physics refuses to acknowledge my ideas simply is – there’s no point. To propose and propose and propose then speculate a lot – is how they see my ideas. It’s as if an amusing chimpanzee wandered into their front yard. They laugh at his antics but wait for him to leave. The conventional approach to space-time is very simple – it is nothing and without qualities. The conventional approach to gravity is twofold: curved space-time and quantum gravity. The former was employed by diehard Einsteinians who strove to vindicate general relativity. The latter is employed by reductionists who strive to incorporate gravity into the standard model. The conventional approach to the strong force between nuclei is similar – it is mediated by gluons. As mentioned above, the conventional approach to elementary particles is called the standard model. It is an agglomeration of ideas, assumptions, an enormous lattice of math, and series of “vindicating” experiments. No new physicist wants to work in general relativity. It is treated as an oddity and orphan by convention. They’d rather work on string theory which someday will be incorporated into the standard model. String theory is the conventional approach to creating a unified model of elementary particles. Unfortunately, it is multidimensional and does not admit any qualities of space-time. As with any branch of conventional physics, it is supported by an enormous lattice of mathematics. However, as can be seen by examining the research of commonsense scientists and anyone else who chooses to break away from convention, a lattice of valid math is not a precursor for acceptance or even consideration by convention. If you 9

break with convention, no matter how perfect or complex your math is – you will be rejected by convention. That’s one reason why I don’t bother trying to develop a lattice of my own. Another reason is that I’m not interested. Finally, I’m a “concept guy” – I like working with ideas and visualizations. No matter how much formal training in math I receive, I’m not a mathematician. To me, math is a tool for modeling systems. The only two proofs that hold interest to me are for Gödel’s Theorem in logic and the Central Limit Theorem in statistics. So for me, proofs in math are useful – but not very interesting. If you want me to prove my core equations with a lattice of arcane math, you’re asking the wrong guy. The best I can do is try to understand the elastic-space model of elementary particles and explain it to others. That’s why I’m writing this book. Don’t get me wrong, some math is elegant and fun to study in its own right – complex variables, linear algebra, and systems theory (just to name a few). But when I take a course in math, I’m constantly distracted by two nagging questions: how can I improve the elastic-space model of e.p.s? And, how can I improve systems science and its utilization? (What elements, if any, can I incorporate into the model or employ in systems theory?) It should be clear what my priorities are: understanding, validating, promoting the model, and systems science. If there was ever a transforming force in my life, it was studying systems science at MSU. The lattice of math for quantum mechanics is based in linear algebra. The same can be said for systems theory. So linear algebra has wide applicability in science and engineering. I have endeavored to develop a matrix formulation of the model, but again – what is the point? It will be rejected by convention regardless. 10

To me, validating the model is not done by creating a lattice of mathematics. Validating the model is done by creating and performing decisive tests – tests that clearly indicate a preference for convention or the model. So for me, the pressing obligation over the years was to develop decisive tests. (Please forgive these digressions in this chapter; they help me write a better and more interesting book, improve the model, and hopefully improve systems science.) This book is clearly not just about the model. It’s also about bringing vigor and excitement back into science. It’s about the Socratic method. It’s about the universality of systems principles. Please have patience as you read. My love of science and engineering should be clear to you by now. But I am most emphatically NOT the “eternal student” some may envision me as. I have this irrepressible urge to DO something with the knowledge and understanding inside me. And not just anything – I must lastingly improve the quality of life for all human beings – in measurable ways. I consider it the obligation of my existence. But let’s get this straight right now, I’m not some glory seeker or egomaniac. My core equation may be more important than E = mc2, but I don’t deserve the Nobel Prize. That goes to the guy or girl who validates the model with a decisive test. That goes to the person who develops the lattice of math required by convention. I’m just the idea guy. ;) Perhaps one of the readers of this book will get physics back on the reality track (as opposed to the elaborate fantasy now subscribed to by convention). Perhaps convention will be able to see their current insanity for what it is and award that person the Nobel Prize. Then again, maybe physics will be doomed to delusion for eternity .. Let’s hope not. 11

Chapter Three – A Decisive Test In the process of writing, I have changed the chapter ordering because of the importance of this concept. Science without tests is fantasy. The following test is not a test of a core equation, but it tests a corollary premise that e.p.s are minidynamical systems which are disturbable – and that these disturbances are measurable. If two particles are identical in: identity (two electrons for example), velocity, and position – they are identical. (This is the conventional perspective – ignoring polarization.) They are indistinguishable. It doesn’t matter how they got there; they behave the same from there on. Regardless of how they arrived, if you later measure some attribute, that value should be the same with the same level of error/uncertainty. Unless.. Unless particles are dynamical systems with a kind of ‘memory’ for past disturbances. Imagine two electrons arriving at the same place with the exact same momentum (at different times of course) but just after a huge difference in disturbance. If one arrived just after a small disturbance and the other arrived just after a much larger disturbance, there should be a larger uncertainty associated with the latter – if elementary particles have ‘memory’. If elementary particles are dynamical systems, they should exhibit larger uncertainties after larger past disturbances. This is the essence of the test. The setting is somewhat like the inside of a TV tube: it’s evacuated with electron gun at one end and target at the other. The EG is adjustable in intensity (number of electrons emitted per unit time). The target, T, is a thin gold foil leaf which bends easily under electron impact. The following is a baseline setup: EG----------------------T 12

The EG is run at various intensities to measure deflection of T. Perhaps a laser bounced off T could give better resolution. In any case, we’re attempting to measure uncertainty in electron momentum – which is the variation in deflection of T. Theoretically, ∆p = ∆(mv) = 2(m∆v + v∆m) ≈ 2m∆v (1) since ∆m should be negligible. Once calculated, this can be compared to the measured uncertainty. The next setup is called “small disturbance” and introduces three magnetic deflectors which disturb the beam by pure reflection: a small magnetic force from MD1 (magnetic deflector 1) deflects the beam off-target, MD2 over-corrects, and MD3 re-places the beam axially: MD2 EG-----MD1 MD3-T The final setup is called “large disturbance” and introduces a larger deflection by using stronger magnets (or more powerful electro-magnets): MD2 /\ / \ EG-----MD1 MD3-T Entire path length – from EG to T is the same – in setups two and three. This is to minimize the ‘number of changed variables’ between the two. That means the relative sizes of the diagrams above is deceptive: the physical separation between MD1 and MD3 is actually larger in setup two. Applying Newton’s second law and the relationship between speed and acceleration (speed is the integral of acceleration), 13

we find uncertainty in momentum is directly related to uncertainty in force: ∆p ≈ 2∆Ft (2) where F is the force imparted from MD3, t is the ‘interaction time’ of an electron with MD3, and uncertainty in time is negligible. Note that the force here induces an angular acceleration (a turn) – not a linear acceleration – axial with the beam. The only confounding factor is t, interaction time with MD3: in the “small disturbance” setup – that time should be smaller than in the “large disturbance” setup because there is less magnetic flux over the same volume (the path of the electron crosses less magnetic flux). So that factor will have to be accounted for in (2). We are trying to calculate an expected uncertainty in deflection of T as compared to the baseline. Those following convention are free to employ the path-integral formulation devised by Feynman and compare with above. What ever you do, examine your assumptions: if path-integral requires you to account for uncertainty in forces and interaction times for all three magnets, then Feynman is assuming elementary particles are dynamical systems with random state variables. If that’s true, then convention and determinism differ by only one fundamental assumption: random state variables vs internal oscillation. There are benefits that ‘go with’ determinism which convention conveniently ignores: the qualities of space-time constrain elementary particles – these are natural and ‘flow’ from the properties of space-time – as compared to convention’s attempt with 11 dimensions and string theory (their dogged adherence to reduction and probability becomes ludicrous and laughable). The other benefit of determinism is that it makes sense. Why appeal to probability when we have the systems approach? 14

Why automatically assign the label “random wave” to elementary particles – based on appearance, ego, and historical revulsion of determinism? It boggles my mind – the intransigence of convention. I’ve realized “a marriage” is not the proper analogy of convention and probability-reduction. The proper analogy is a baby clinging to their mother’s breast – desperate for milk. The conventional adherence to probabilityreduction is infantile.

15

Chapter Four – The Core Equations In this chapter, we take a deeper dive into the following table – in order to deepen our understanding of space-time and energy: m/(μ0ε0) = ħωm hν ≡ h/Tγ2 ((ħ/2)/tP)X ≡ (h/tP)C Y0lPX = Z0e2ωe ωe ≡ 10.905ωm X ≡ Δl/l = m/lPY0μ0ε0 = 2tPωm The purpose of this book is to show they are not just equations – that they have deep meaning about basic structures in our universe. Anyone can scribble down a list of equations, but it takes years of contemplation to truly understand the fabric of space-time from scratch. What was my inspiration? In junior high, a gym teacher mentioned to me that they thought elementary particles were confined photons. They said they could not prove it, but they were sure it was true. This planted a seed in my mind – itching to explain and understand. After years of paper research (at that time – no internet), I found one man, published in Physics Essays, who seemed able to prove auto-confinement. Of course, he is dismissed and ignored by convention. Since then, I have given up trying to prove elementary particles are trapped photons. But over the years, in the process of trying to prove and understand, I have discovered deeper and more fundamental concepts/relations. Those are listed above. The first line is Einstein’s discovery written differently. Some years ago, it was discovered that the speed of light squared is equal to the inverse of space-permeability times space16

m/(μ0ε0) = ħωm hν ≡ h/Tγ2 ((ħ/2)/tP)X ≡ (h/tP)C Y0lPX = Z0e2ωe ωe ≡ 10.905ωm X ≡ Δl/l = m/lPY0μ0ε0 = 2tPωm permittivity. And separately, that energy is equal to h-bar times omega, angular frequency. Everyone agrees that h-bar is the fundamental unit of angular momentum. But the physical meaning of omega – convention refuses to say. It’s simply the “amount of h-bars”, a coefficient of h-bar, in particles – according to convention. So line one is basically a rewrite of mc2 = E. What does it show? It shows that the energy in mass is directly related to space-permeability and space-permittivity. Those two – are components of Z0, the impedance of space. Line two relates to Einstein’s special theory of relativity. It is a required definition to keep things consistent in that respect. If we divide both sides by h, Planck’s constant, we get frequency is identically equal to the inverse of period times gamma squared. Gamma comes from special relativity and is equal to the square-root of one minus speed over light-speed squared. It is a dimensionless fraction which typically amplifies rest values when we divide those rest values by it. Nu, frequency, is a relativistic quantity – which means it is amplified by speed. Period, T, is also a relativistic quantity. In fact, mass and angular frequency, from line one, are relativistic quantities. We normally write m = m0/γ, for instance, which means relativistic mass is rest mass divided by gamma. We omit the term ‘relativistic’ to avoid confusion, but it is strictly required to be precise in our statements. 17

m/(μ0ε0) = ħωm hν ≡ h/Tγ2 ((ħ/2)/tP)X ≡ (h/tP)C Y0lPX = Z0e2ωe ωe ≡ 10.905ωm X ≡ Δl/l = m/lPY0μ0ε0 = 2tPωm Frequency is angular frequency over 2π, but convention ascribes little or no meaning to frequency and period in this context. Normally, period is the inverse of frequency – and this is true for many many systems. But because time slows down for speedy crafts/particles, and because time slows down near strong gravity sources, we must rationally explain this somehow. The causal deterministic perspective asserts they are the same thing. In my theory, I explain them both as curved space-time. Convention assigns no deep meaning to special relativity. Convention typically explains time dilation with a particle bouncing between plates: at rest, it has a fixed distance of travel, frequency, and period; at high speed, it has a longer travel path, lower frequency, and longer period. (The direction of travel is parallel to the plates.) But this conventional perspective sheds no light on the causal mechanism of time dilation. Convention avoids this ‘messy situation’ (having to define the relationship between frequency and period above) by not ascribing any physical meaning to omega, nu, and T. h and hbar (h-bar is h/2π) are most certainly not relativistic quantities (they don’t change with speed). So if omega, nu, and T have any physical meaning, the ‘only room to move’ (the only quantities above that can be relativistic quantities) is in them. We know for a fact that mass increases, energy increases, and time slows down for speedy particles. We know for a fact that 18

m/(μ0ε0) = ħωm hν ≡ h/Tγ2 ((ħ/2)/tP)X ≡ (h/tP)C Y0lPX = Z0e2ωe ωe ≡ 10.905ωm X ≡ Δl/l = m/lPY0μ0ε0 = 2tPωm h, h-bar, and charge don’t change for any speed. So again, if omega, nu, and T have any physical meaning, they must be relativistic quantities. I propose omega-m (m for mass) is the angular spin rate of the core of elementary particles. This is proposed to be a Plancksphere with diameter of Planck-length. The following is a list of Planck dimensions: Planck-length = lP = 1.61608*10-35 m Planck-time = tP = 5.39067*10-44 s Planck-speed = c = lP/tP = 2.99792*108 m/s They are conventionally considered to be absolute in the sense: nothing can be shorter than Planck-length, no time can be shorter than Planck-time, and no speed can be greater than c, the speed of light. Anything shorter or faster is physically meaningless. h-bar/2 is the conventionally accepted value for spin of elementary particles. That’s why it appears in line three above. (Actually, once you define X and C, the rest become easy to derive.) I arrived at line three by listing and simplifying eight different ways to describe energy. The identity symbol is really between X and C. Once you divide both sides by h and multiply by tP, you find X ≡ 4πC. 4π is conventionally known as ‘a solid angle’. Temporal curvature, C, through a solid angle is linear extension of space. This is a definition. 19

m/(μ0ε0) = ħωm hν ≡ h/Tγ2 ((ħ/2)/tP)X ≡ (h/tP)C Y0lPX = Z0e2ωe ωe ≡ 10.905ωm X ≡ Δl/l = m/lPY0μ0ε0 = 2tPωm Linear extension is defined in line two of the lower box. It follows from the standard definitions of stress and strain in engineering. Y is the standard symbol for Young’s modulus of elasticity. It is required for an elastic model of space. In practice, once Y is determined, X can be calculated (and vice versa). The ‘per unit length’ must be decided and once it is, the rest pretty much ‘flow’ from that decision; the choice of Y0 and ‘per unit length’ determine X here. Y is normally given in newtons. So, in deriving/defining Y0, I used that as a guide .. I feel like I’ve pretty much lost all of you except the engineers at this point. Let me insert my original derivation here. Due to expansion of the Universe, space is under tension. When a particle mutually annihilates with its anti-counterpart, it's as if an ideal stretched string has been plucked – two photons / e-m waves are emitted in opposite directions. Of course, space has more qualities than just being under tension. It has permeability and permittivity. c2 = τ0/λ0 (1) p3 wave propagation rate squared is tension reduced by mass per unit length c2 = 1/μ0ε0 (2) p250 the speed of light squared is the inverse of permeability times permittivity 20

=> λ0 = τ0μ0ε0 (3) So, a mass is an element of space (per unit length) under tension (or internal pressure) subject to permeability and permittivity. Perceptive readers should notice (3) is a clever rewrite of E = mc2. But it's more than that – it shows that masses are a product of the three and only three qualities of space – elasticity, permeability, and permittivity: τ0 = Y(Δl/l) (4) p72 tension is linearly related to extension through Young's modulus under the elastic limit => λ0 = Y0μ0ε0(Δl/l) (5) (Page references are from Physics of Waves, Elmore and Heald, 1969, Dover.) .. Until now, we have not made the 'per unit length' explicit. Let's do that and assign the Planck-length: λ0/lP = Y0μ0ε0(Δl/l) (6) This is a place to start and we'll follow a similar convention when the need arises. Let's replace lambda with the standard notation and move lP to the other side: m0 = (Y0lP)μ0ε0(Δl/l) (7) Multiply by unity (where tP is the Planck-time): m0 = (Y0lPtP)μ0ε0(Δl/ltP) (8) Now, the first factor on the RHS is 'where we want it' (units are in joule-seconds). And, the fact we had to 'contort' the extension by dividing it by the Planck-time should not prove insurmountable to deal with later. Finally, let's assume the first factor is equal to the magnitude of spin of electrons and protons, ħ/2: m0 = (ħ/2)μ0ε0(Δl/ltP) (9) By our last assumption, Y0 = ħ/2lPtP ≈ 6.0526*1043 N. To simplify and isolate the extension: m0 = (ħ/2c2)(Δl/l)(1/tP) (10) => (Δl/l) = (2c2tP/ħ)m0 = 2(tP/ħ)E0 (11) So, the linear strain of space due to internal stress is directly related to rest-energy through a Planck-measure. Later, if space 21

allows (pun intended), we will show that (11) reduces to an even simpler form involving only two factors. If our assumptions hold, the numerical values for (11), for electrons and protons respectively, are approximately: 8.3700*10-23 and 1.5368*10-19. The values are dimensionless – per the definition of linear strain. The meaning is: 'locally', space is expanded (linearly) by the fractions above (assumed in each dimension). What exactly locally means – will have to be addressed later. The numerical value of Y0 is extremely high as expected. All this says is: space is extremely inelastic. The numerical values for ∆l/l will have to be investigated – perhaps as suggested in the previous paper .. That concludes my original derivation of Y0 and X. It may help to read it through several times noting the assumptions. I could ride the fence like convention and say there is nothing inside Planck-spheres except energy, but if we think about it very carefully – we are somewhat forced into a position of proposing/accepting that there is structure inside. This is what I have been avoiding for twenty-five years! :( Twenty-five years ago, it was suggested to me to employ Planck dimensions. And I believe I understood the danger at that time. That’s why I doggedly pursued a model with Compton dimensions. But it simply doesn’t work with an elastic model of space. Dimensions cannot be so large; force cannot be distributed over large areas because there is not enough energy in e.p.s to balance that. The only model that seems to work is a dual-sized model – Planck-size for mass and Compton size for charge. At this very moment of writing, it occurred to me – the possibility of torii within torii. Bergman and his staff at 22

commonsensescienc.org have developed a quasi-torus model of electro-dynamic flux. In the process of deriving the Plancksphere model of mass, a step in that process was proposing an ultra-thin torus. But that torus has to be thinner than the Planck-length for that model to work. That’s why I rejected it. I must concede that it is possible e.p.s may be torii within torii. But there are two reasons why I don’t subscribe to that perspective right now: mass as ultra-thin torii requires extra assumptions about geometry – assumptions we cannot prove now. And, do you see Bergman’s staff willing to work with me? No. So what’s the point of me trying to integrate models when the other party refuses to collaborate? They are also currently dismissed by convention. I believe that model would require a similar onion-like structure within the inner torus. (Part of my model of the core is the proposal it is an onion-like spherical standing wave of temporal curvature.) Except that it would have to be torii within torii. Until this geometry can be proven to me and Bergman’s staff becomes willing to work with me, I will defer accepting this model. The simpler model is sphere within torus. I suppose we are ready to study the fourth line in the core equation table. Originally, there was not an equal sign. The approximation comes from my discovery ħ ≈ Z0e2. For about fifteen years, I have stared at that ‘≈’ – trying to understand it. The factor that makes equality is 10.905 on the right side. But every time I would try to explain/understand it, required additional assumptions. In order to write and publish this book, I’m required to ‘take a stand’. To me, it’s better to take a stand and be wrong than ride the fence for eternity. At least you have a chance for progress. Riding the fence does not. 23

m/(μ0ε0) = ħωm hν ≡ h/Tγ2 ((ħ/2)/tP)X ≡ (h/tP)C Y0lPX = Z0e2ωe ωe ≡ 10.905ωm X ≡ Δl/l = m/lPY0μ0ε0 = 2tPωm Can 10.905 be absorbed into any term on left or right? If on the left, we must modify definitions of elasticity or extension (and justify it). On the right, we basically only have two choices: Z0e2 and omega. If we choose the former, we are implicitly choosing some geometry. If we choose omega, we must understand the consequences and any associated assumptions. If electric flux is a spinning ring with outer dimension of Compton diameter (h = mcλC, where lambda-C is Compton wavelength), and if ωe = 10.905ωm, then tangential speed is 10.905c which is impossible – or is it? There are only two choices at this point: allow flux speeds greater than c or change dimensions. Since allowing speeds greater than c tends to throw a ‘monkey wrench’ into things, we’ll go with the latter. Let’s tentatively change the outer dimension of the flux ring to λC/10.905. That way, the tangential speed is exactly light-speed which agrees with the Bergman model. Why do I bother to conform my model to Bergman’s? Again, it’s because in all my searches, I have found only one complete deterministic model of elementary particles which seems to make any sense .. A member of the Faraday Group, of which I am the founder, worked on this model independently a decade or so earlier than Bergman’s seminal paper. But I won’t give his name here to help readers discover this for themselves. 24

m/(μ0ε0) = ħωm hν ≡ h/Tγ2 ((ħ/2)/tP)X ≡ (h/tP)C Y0lPX = Z0e2ωe ωe ≡ 10.905ωm X ≡ Δl/l = m/lPY0μ0ε0 = 2tPωm The following are websites for Faraday Group: unc.edu/~gravity/ msu.edu/~micheals/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/faraday_group/ Please join and contribute if you are so inclined. The group is “an association of physicists and those interested in physics”. They are most definitely NOT working on unifying my model with anything else; everybody’s working on their own thing. For current updates of this theory, please visit: https://www.msu.edu/~micheal/physics/ The reason I organized the table above – the way it is – is for the following reason. Everything in the top box is actually the same thing; they are all equal to energy – they are eight different ways of looking at energy! Mass has spin; it has frequency; it has period; it is curvature; it is extension; it is spinning flux. The fact we can look at energy (at least) eight different ways is not a testament to human ingenuity and insight – it’s a statement about the elegance of our universe. Our universe is a beautiful and wonder-full place. Just look up on a clear night.

25

Chapter Five – An Intuitive Description True understanding does not come from regurgitation of facts; it comes from internalizing concepts. It took me years to understand the electromagnetic wave, the photon. And I still cannot bridge the gap between photons and e.p.s if they are indeed the same thing. My original proposal was that radiation propagates through space by changing form: from electromagnetic to gravitational and back.. In gravitational form, the wave is much like a 3D soliton. The e-m part is well understood by engineers. In my searches on the net, I could find only one other who developed a similar model of photons. But as I mentioned before, focusing on a trapped-photon model of e.p.s is a ‘dead end’; physicists will auto-reject that idea faster than you can say “reject”. It’s better to focus on a model with the minimum number of assumptions. That way, there’s at least a small chance for consideration. I visualize the core with layers – much like an onion. In a way, we must ascribe some structure to the inside – or there is no way to differentiate between protons and electrons. Electrically, there is no difference between a positron and proton; there is no electrical difference between an electron and antiproton. The difference is about mass. If we can accept that masses are spherical standing waves of temporal curvature, then the difference between masses is simply a difference in wave number inside the sphere. The real (next) question becomes: why are there only two stable (forms of) elementary particles? (Why are there only two stable wave numbers inside the sphere?) If I could answer that, to the satisfaction of convention, I would have the Nobel Prize. For me, a more important question is about the physical link between core and ring of flux. At this point, I can only 26

speculate. If the core was distributed as a torus within a torus, the physical connection between core and ring of flux would be easier to visualize: one would be part of the other. Unless the core generates the ring of flux (or vice versa), I see no other way to comprehend it (if the true situation is sphere within torus). The differing spin rates is somewhat alarming. It would seem to make the physical connection somewhat tenuous. I would expect the outer rate to be less than inner – if outer ‘dragged’ inner .. As you can see, even I – the theory’s discoverer, have trouble comprehending it. From the core equations, spinning flux is an equal expression for energy of elementary particles. It is just as important as core energy. For e.p.s, they are inseparable. Whether the core is a torus or sphere, its spin rate is less than that of the flux ring. It must ‘drag’ the flux ring in a way. Or else spin rates would be the same. So imagine an elementary particle as a new couple: the flux ring is the vibrant and energetic new bride; the core is her dull and boring new husband. He drags his feet; he slouches (boy, does this sound familiar;). He acts as if space impedes his way ;). His bride zips around – she moves at the speed of light. All he can do to ‘keep up with her’ is spin around himself – watching her. But he can’t; space impedes his very spin. Of course, I don’t imagine e.p.s as ice skating newlyweds (maybe an old married couple – hobbling around;). The problem with trying to visualize the system is that we don’t have good macroscopic analogies for the electromagnetic field. We don’t have good macroscopic analogies for charge flux. It’s difficult to connect to the model viscerally when we don’t have everyday experiences to connect to it. 27

If e.p.s are torii within torii, imagine them as donuts within donuts. The inner donut is very very thin and resides in the center – inside the flux-outer donut. Inside the very very thin inner donut – it has layers and layers. Now imagine them spinning. But the spin rates are different. The inner donut lags behind the outer donut. Its spin is impeded somehow. Just today in a dream, an elderly black man asked me a kind of ‘trick question’: “A building is falling off a cliff. What holds it up?” I replied “Gimme a minute; I need to think about this.” Then he said “You’re supposed to answer these on the fly.” I heard him talking to another guy about more questions – something about complex numbers. (If you and I have the same amount of imaginary numbers, what do we have? Answer: the same complex number.) And then I realized what he was looking for: “Oh I know what it is!” (He raised an eyebrow toward me.) “Inertia! Inertia holds the building up!” What keeps e.p.s spinning? Inertia. What keeps the disk drive inside your computer spinning? (other than the motor to overcome friction and accelerate the disk initially) Inertia. Inertia is the quality of matter that resists acceleration (whether it be linear or angular). The deep question that ‘no one’ has been able to answer: what causes inertia? No one is in quotes because many have tried to answer that question – just no one has succeeded to satisfy convention with their answer. Some time ago, I explained inertia as the smeared extension. But if we think about mass as confined temporal curvature, inertia is simply the lack of energy to add or take away from the core. Accelerating a mass adds relativistic energy to the core; decelerating a mass takes away. A particle at rest has a fixed minimum amount of energy in the core. 28

What could be more elegant than that? Convention’s resistance to positive change is like the inertia inside a baby – refusing to grow up .. One of my theories of personality is about ‘emotional inertia’. When something makes us angry, really angry, it takes time to cool down. When we love, truly love, it’s usually for a long time. Our emotions have a kind of inertia. Of course, I’ve watched my baby change from crying to laughing in a blink of an eye, but adults rarely do this. I believe the concept of inertia is important not just to physics and engineering .. It could be said that the field of physics is all the teachers, students, and researchers that care about physics. Their collective belief system is important to the field. Their resistance to change, their ‘philosophical inertia’, is important: if a new idea is wrong, take time to confirm it – and reject it; if a new idea is right, take time to confirm it – and accept it. The central problem with accepting my ideas is not the lack of math-lattice supporting them; it’s the fundamental disagreement in approach. Convention has accepted the random-wave model of matter. It uses reduction to break a problem into parts – then tries to solve them separately. Because of my training in systems, I have a holistic approach to solving problems. Sometimes, problems are so complex, you need the systems approach to solve them. In my book on systems, I define complexity to be “the property of a system with the following features: a generous frequency of distinct types of components, a non-trivial arrangement of those components – in order for the system to function nominally, and some quantitative evidence of a system-wide synergy.” Now strictly speaking, e.p.s are not complex structures, but their behavior inside atoms and molecules suggests we need the systems approach to understand them. Convention cannot accept my ideas because it cannot integrate them into the current framework – ideas clash. I’m not asking 29

them to discard reduction – just amplify it with the systems approach. But I am asking them to take a hard long look at the random-wave concept, compare it to the elegance of temporal curvature, and decide. If they decide to keep random-wave, that’s their business – their problem. They will find more and more compelling evidence against it (such as exact atomic control – we can do it now). Uncertainty in physics is becoming a relic of the past (the uncertainty relations used to hold prime importance in physics). When I was in university, it was my conviction that problem solving is a matter of perspective: achieve the right perspective, the problem ‘solves itself’. What this means in practice is: reformulate the problem in a clever way and the solution usually becomes obvious. The book called Heuristics confirms this. It’s an excellent resource for problem solving. I haven’t finished reading it; it’s very ‘heavy’ mathematically. The first two or three chapters can be digested by science students; try it. After years of conventional problem solving, I’m convinced the systems approach is absolutely required for some types of problems: space systems engineering (in order to avoid the Shuttle type disasters), human systems engineering (on a global scale such as suggested by my book Humanity Thrive!), and ‘microscopic’ systems analysis. In the first two cases, we are designing systems. In the last case, we are trying to understand it. Microscopic is in quotes because the systems we are trying to understand are much smaller than what’s viewable with a microscope. That’s part of the problem. We cannot view them directly. We can only infer properties from various kinds of experiments. The only technique that has any chance of viewing them directly is electron interferometry. And that technique is currently in dispute .. So, a chapter on the systems approach is advisable here. 30

Chapter Six – The Systems Approach (This chapter was taken from Humanity Thrive! and applies to the global human system. The principle can be applied to any system.) Boundary What's inside the system, what's outside the system, and what're the major components of the system? In answering these questions, we address the system notion of boundary. Let’s examine the human system. What's inside the human system? Human beings, social organization (formal and informal), and our infrastructure – are major sub-systems. What are inputs? Those are energy, resources, ecologies that impact our lives, and natural (non-living) systems that impact our lives. What things “flow” between major sub-systems? Those things are: resources, energy, information, feelings (can be thought of as commodities that are exchanged), “control signals”, and disinformation. What are outputs of the human system? Those are wastes, heat, information, culture (both constructive and destructive aspects), and things that affect non-living systems and ecologies. Aside: what's war in systems terms? War is the allocation of resources, energy, information, feelings (such as aggression), control signals, and disinformation – all directed at one goal: domination. The “rational” idea behind war (as hoped by governments waging war) is that long-term gains should outweigh any short-term malady. Please refer to the chapter below entitled: The Ends Cannot Justify the Means.

31

So, the system notion of boundary is the view that identifies the system concerned: what is inside and out, what are major components, what flows between, and what flows in and out. Scope There are three major aspects of the system notion of scope: feasibility, customer requirements, and design responsibilities. Tied together in question form: can you design a workable system that satisfies customer and design requirements within budget? As applied to the human system: can we re-design a workable human system (as defined above) that satisfies humanity and our design constraints within our allocated budget (assume for the moment we have a design budget and authority to re-allocate system resources to satisfy design requirements)? This is an extremely difficult question when dealing with complex systems. Frequently, the entire process of “system design”: identify boundary, scope, maintenance concerns, and reliability – must be repeated several times – “filling out” details of sub-systems and flows, inputs and outputs, re-answering the question associated with scope (with every major change in system design, there is an associated change in the question of scope), and the concerns below. Maintenance Expect to pay at least the same amount for maintenance – as for “the original system”. In this case, the “end users” are human beings themselves. If we can design and implement a human system that satisfies (I would substitute the word fulfills here) the vast majority of human beings, if we can maximize quality-of-life while minimizing suffering, and at the same time – not create a welfare state, we would have accomplished something truly fundamental. Maintenance is the “upkeep” for 32

the designed system – to satisfy end-user requirements. Frequently, the designed system does not take into account many of those (it’s too expensive and difficult to satisfy every end-user need) – and – it's difficult and sometimes impossible to anticipate changes in end-user requirements. So, it’s a tradeoff: the more we spend on creating a “maintenance-free” product, the less we are likely to spend on maintenance – provided we have the foresight to anticipate the true needs of end-users. There's risk involved – which brings up the next topic. Reliability What is the risk/probability of failure of a major sub-system? What is the cost of that particular failure? Multiply the two and you get a simplistic projection of the relative cost. Let’s consider a “simple” example: a telecommunication switch (the device used to route local calls). The risk of total failure (where the switch “goes down” – it cannot route any new calls and all calls-in-progress are dropped) – is quite low: perhaps once in ten years. The cost of that failure can be quite high – depending on the local customer base and duration. Even considering averages, the cost can rise into the millions. So, let’s say the switch is down for three hours and costs the local telephone company two million in lost revenue and bad publicity. Just three hours in ten years. If you divide down-time by up-time (over ten years) then multiply by two million, you get around $70 which equates to about three hours of technician-time. So, we're justified if we allocate three technician-hours for switch maintenance (over ten years) to specifically avoid this kind of problem. Actually, telephone companies allocate much more than this to avoid total switch failure. 33

Let’s move the discussion toward the human system. Catastrophic failure would be where every single human being would die. Admittedly, the probability of that is extremely low. Extremely low but non-zero. Some would say the cost of that event would be “infinity”. A number (no matter how low) times infinity is still infinity. So, the relative cost is still “just too high”. So, anything we spend on preventing that event – is money well spent. A dynamical system is one in which past inputs affect present outputs or system state. Reliability usually refers to the domain of systems concerns – which reflect upon system stability. Stability refers to the behavior of system state over time. Is it restricted? Or does vary madly – threatening to destroy the system itself? (Reliability also refers to dependability or consistency of good system performance. If a car does not start, has repeated mechanical breakdowns, or exhibits uncontrollable vibrations while driving – we say it is unreliable.) ..In systems theory, much emphasis is put on controllability and observability – which are pretty much – exactly what they “say”: a system is controllable if there are finite inputs which “drive” (or push) system state to desired specifications – and – a system is observable if there is a set of measurable outputs which represent the state of the system. State variables are those which represent system structure. When we are designing a system “from scratch”, these are all known and explicit. When we are trying to understand a natural system “from the outside”, we have to make reasonable guesses about state, inputs, outputs, and attempt to determine if the system is observable and controllable.. 34

In systems analysis, there are stable systems and there are unstable systems. A famous image of wind shear causing increasing oscillations, in this case twists, is recalled by many of the public. The flexible bridge here is “the system” and the constant wind shear – the input. The system under the force of gravity (only) is stable. The system under gravity and wind shear – unstable. There are many analogous stresses/inputs on the human system. Hunger can be thought of – as a kind of stress. Overpopulation causes hunger which is a stress on the human system. Disease vectors cause stress on the human system. Changing weather patterns cause stress on the human system. Disruption of food supply chains causes stress on the human system. Lowering the quality of education causes stress on the human system. The point of this chapter is to introduce systems concepts, apply them cursorily to the human system, and provide a launching point for other ideas below. (Again, this chapter was taken from Humanity Thrive! The last sentence above applies to that book.)

35

Chapter Seven – The Website What came first: the chicken or the egg? ;) The ‘inspiration’ for this book was the following website. After making it, I realized I would have to write this book. Before the website, I wrote another book called Gravitation and Elementary Particles. Parts of that are used in this but it’s largely mathematical and would probably confuse most readers. Many details from the website can be found above but it summarizes well ergo inclusion. Temporal Curvature and Elementary Particles Sam Micheal, Faraday Group, 30/OCT/2008 This theory is based on the assumption space is an elastic medium which can be distorted under extreme force. We define a new quantity Y0 ≡ ħ/2lPtP ≈ 1044 N which we call the elasticity of space. Another new quantity is the linear strain of space which we call the extension: X ≡ m/lPY0μ0ε0 = 2tPω. A related quantity is temporal curvature: C ≡ X/4π = t Pν. With these new definitions, it can be shown all significant attributes of elementary particles are interrelated: energy in mass is energy in extension which is the same energy in temporal curvature which is spinning charge. The two qualities of space, elasticity and impedance, relate the significant attributes of elementary particles. Time dilation aboard a speedy craft is an accepted fact. Time dilation near strong gravity sources is also an accepted fact. For the moment, let’s ignore spatial curvature near those. Let’s focus only on temporal curvature. Time slows down the most at the maximum of curvature. This could be the center of a planet, star, or neutron star. In a circular orbit, temporal curvature is constant. In a plunging orbit, temporal curvature goes from some fixed level to maximum then back to the fixed level 36

(depending on starting position). Analysis in gravitation is about trajectories or geometry. The two trajectories listed above are orthogonal in that any trajectory can be made from a linear combination of both. This is essentially a proof that gravitation can be analyzed exclusively in the context of temporal curvature. In much the same way, the mass component of elementary particles can be treated as a manifestation of temporal curvature. Energy in mass can be viewed as energy in temporal curvature. This is especially convenient when we consider relativistic effects: relativistic energy is simply an enhancement of rest energy (in temporal curvature). Elementary particles have three components of energy: two that are non-relativistic and one, mentioned above, which is a relativistic quantity. The non-relativistic components are spin and electric flux. (The facts that two of three are nonrelativistic quantities, their measured levels, and the ten stable elementary particles – are not debated here. I believe a full understanding of temporal curvature and appreciation of impedance will illuminate all these facts.) Some years ago, I discovered a relationship between charge and spin that has been ignored and dismissed: ħ ≈ Z0e2 where Z0 is the impedance of space. Spin is impeded charge (moment). There is a kind of equivalence between spin and charge (moment). If we ignore the numerical approximation, total energy can be expressed as: ET = E0/γ + E0/2π + E0/4π where γ = √(1-(v/c)2) and where the first term is energy in temporal curvature, second – energy in electric flux, and third – energy in spin. 37

Energy Distribution at Various Speeds

tem p curv elec flux spin

v=0

tem p curv elec flux spin

v = .25c

tem p curv elec flux spin

v = .5c 38

tem p curv elec flux spin

v = .75c

tem p curv elec flux spin

v = .99c The next serious question is about the confinement mechanism – what keeps these “bubbles in space-time” from simply dissipating? What holds them together? I propose a balancing of forces: the extreme inelasticity of space with an incredible internal temporal pressure wave. The elasticity of space can be calculated with a couple assumptions: Y0 = ħ/2lPtP ≈ 6.0526 *1043 N. If elementary particles are Planck-sized objects, they must have internal pressure that balances that extreme force. I propose a spherical standing wave of temporal curvature – much like an onion in terms of structure. The rest energy of elementary particles is small but pack that energy into a very 39

small space and you have a good candidate for the confinement mechanism. Again, the issue here is not the why of ten elementary particles. I believe that why can be answered when we fully understand temporal curvature and appreciate the impedance of space. The only extended component of elementary particle energy is electric flux. The other components are confined to the Plancksphere.* This could explain the double-slit phenomenon of self-interference. The electric flux of elementary particles is not unlike a soliton – a solitary standing wave of electric energy. It is not unreasonable to propose this is the mechanism of selfinterference. This idea could be tested in simulation and verified with real particle beams of various configurations. *Of course, there must be “residual” extensions of spin and gravitational energy – otherwise, spin and gravitational interactions (between elementary particles) would not be present. (As I understand it, spin is manifested via magnetic moment which is a result of spinning charge. Gravitation must be an extension of temporal curvature beyond the Plancksphere. The proportion of extended energy must be dependent on number and amplitude of waves inside.) ..An idea I discarded around twelve years ago was the following. Temporal curvature acts as an energy reservoir for oscillating flux and spin. This idea was developed to account for tunneling behavior. Preliminary calculations were not encouraging (energy in electric flux must be increased to compensate for “sinusoidal deficit” – in order to maintain Bohr dimensions.) Perhaps tunneling can be explained in another semi-classical way or perhaps there is indeed some oscillation of electric flux and spin. Further work is required. This theory has been developing for about twenty-five years – very slowly at first for three reasons: difficulty in visualization, 40

ironing out seeming inconsistencies, and my reluctance to employ Planck-size. Visualizing standing waves of temporal curvature is not easy. There were apparent inconsistencies in the relativistic domain at first, but these disappear with proper definitions (ν ≡ 1/Tγ2). Around twenty-five years ago, it was suggested to me to employ Planck-size but the fact theory becomes unverifiable when you do that – impelled me to pursue other avenues at first (Compton dimensions). The theory “took off” when I took a course in electromagnetism around fifteen years ago. This is when I discovered the relationship between spin and charge. And only very recently did I give up on Compton dimensions in preference for Plancksize. It took over twenty years to precisely define elasticity – in part – because of my reluctance to employ Planck dimensions. Once we arrive at a suitable model of elementary particles – one with appropriate arrangement of spin and flux, creating nuclei, atoms, and molecules (as in simulations) – will become child’s play. The purpose of this perspective is to present a plausible and elegant picture of elementary particles – that they are stable vibrations in space-time. From this perspective, it can be shown the origin of uncertainty is not a probability density function – but the vibratory nature of elementary particles themselves. Energy-uncertainty can be shown to be bounded by a linear function of position-uncertainty – alone. This contrasts the conventional perspective which asserts energy and time uncertainty are complementary and interdependent random variables – decreasing one increases the other and vice versa. No theory is any good – unless it is testable – and a decisive test is proposed – to compare against convention and this more 41

elegant perspective. It is proposed elementary particles are “mini dynamical systems” that are disturbable – and that those disturbances are measurable. For a more thorough discussion and development of these ideas – please download a copy of my latest book: Gravitation and Elementary Particles. Addendum 1: “The Universe in Fourteen Lines” ;) E ≡ Y0lPX ≡ Y0ctP4πC ≡ mc2 ≡ hν ≡ h/Tγ2 ≡ hC/tP ≡ ħω ≈ Z0e2ω ΔEΔt ≥ ħ/2; ΔpΔx ≥ ħ/2; ΔXΔt ≥ tP; ΔE > -c1Δx + c2; ΔX > -c3Δx + c4 I was told years ago that “It’s useless to stare at equations for hours at a time.”, but insights can be garnered by constructing lists of identities such as above – “proving” things that perhaps were only suspected before. Reading above in English: energy is (the force in) the elasticity of space through Planck-length causing an extension – which is – that same force through Planck-time causing temporal curvature – which is – mass times the speed of light squared – which is – Planck-energy times frequency – which is – Planck-energy divided by period – which is – Planck-energy times temporal curvature divided by Planck-time – which is – the fundamental unit of angular momentum times angular frequency – which is approximately equal to the impedance of space times charge-moment times angular frequency. c in line three is a scaling factor to keep units correct (c is the speed of light). Gamma in line six is a relativistic scaling factor. E, X, C, m, ν, T, and ω are all relativistic quantities. Three fundamental identities were 42

garnered in the process of constructing above – insights that I suspected but could not easily prove: mass is energy stored in temporal curvature – Y0(4πtP/c)C ≡ m, energy through time is energy in curvature – EtP ≡ hC, energy through time is spin causing extension – EtP ≡ (ħ/2)X, and there is a kind of equivalence between the elasticity of space and the impedance of space (a relation I’ve been looking for – a long time) – Y0lPX ≈ Z0e2ω. Strictly speaking, force through time causes temporal curvature – which is mass. Energy through time is energy in curvature. Energy through time is also spin-moment causing spatial extension. The final relation deserves special explanation. It shows there’s a correspondence between three sets of analogous quantities. Elasticity is to length as impedance is to charge-moment; length is to extension as charge-moment is to angular frequency; elasticity is to extension as impedance is to angular frequency. Extended space is spinning charge. The relation shows how equally important elasticity and impedance are. ..Some years ago, I abandoned an oscillatory model of elementary particles – where energy in charge-spin oscillated with energy in spatial-temporal curvature – I could not prove it (editors objected: mere speculation). So I attempted to cut my assumptions to minimum – cutting away parts of the model that were not absolutely essential. The current model is plausible and feasible. The more I investigate it, the more it seems to make sense. We just need to work on modeling flux and spin (such as proposed by Bergman). Let’s rewrite above – just keeping the absolute essentials: m/(μ0ε0) ≡ E ≡ (h/tP)C ≈ Z0e2ω ≡ ≡ Y0lPX ≡ ((ħ/2)/tP)X 43

where μ0 is the permeability of space, ε0 is the permittivity of space, and Z0 ≡ √(μ0/ε0) ≈ 377 Ω. m ≡ (h/tPc2)C Y0lPX ≈ Z0e2ω Energy in mass; is: elastic force through distance causing extension; is: energy over time causing temporal curvature; is: spin energy over time causing extension; is: spinning charge. Curved space-time is mass is spinning charge; it’s all the same energy – just different manifestations of it. Line two: mass is energy over time causing temporal curvature; mass is temporal curvature. Line three: there is a kind of equivalence between the elasticity and impedance of space. Addendum 2: A Note About Approximation Many will dismiss this theory for the simple reason I use an approximation above between spin and charge energy. ..After some contemplation, we could think of the difference (ratio) between charge and mass energy (.091701) as lag in phase (phase difference) between them. If we represent energy in mass as cos2θ, the phase lag for charge energy is -1.26314. Since mass is a standing wave of temporal curvature, we cannot detect this phase lag directly – we can only calculate it. This seems better than summoning a cloud of virtual particles to explain charge deficit. Of course, the why of charge energy phase lag still needs to be explained. ..Yet another way of looking at charge deficit is with vectors (we assume a specific geometry with this perspective): two electric vectors with equal 44

magnitude of √Z0e lay in x-y plane. Their cross product is a vector in the z-direction with magnitude Z0e2sinθ where θ is the angle between electric vectors. Since sinθ = .091701, θ = .09183 = 5.26149° (the angle is not unique: π-.09183 also works). Again, if we adopt this approach, we need to explain why. Finally, a third approach to explaining the factor 10.905 is to propose a different spin rate for electric flux: if we let ωe = 10.905ωm, ħωm = Z0e2ωe. As with the others, if we adopt this approach, we must explain why it’s preferable. I prefer the simplest approach which requires the least number of assumptions – one that jives with reality. For example, if the final approach does not agree with measured magnetic moment, we must throw it out. Addendum 3: A Tentative Complete Model Based on the third assumption above and its qualifications, let’s tentatively assume it’s correct and complete the model: m = ħωm = (ħ/2)X ≡ Y0lPX = Z0e2ωe μ0ε0 tP ≡ ωe ≡ 10.905ωm hC X ≡ Δl = m = 2tPωm tP l lPY0μ0ε0 Elementary particles are dual-sized structures with corresponding dual-spin. Space-time curvature is largely confined to a Planck-sphere whereas electric flux resides largely within Compton dimensions. Inner spin is ħ/2 with rate ωm; outer spin is Z0e2 with rate ωe. The link between them is the elasticity/impedance of space (Y0/Z0 = 1.60661*1041 AC/m). Sam Micheal, 30/OCT/2008 micheal at msu dot edu Chapter Eight – Uncertainty, Part One 45

A New Uncertainty Relation for Conventional Physics Salvatore G. Micheal, Faraday Group, [email protected], 11/19/2007 A new uncertainty relation is derived with the following parameters: extension of space (linear strain), time, and Planck-time. An argument on its fundamental nature and meaning is presented. Two related aether theories are discussed. For those unable to divorce themselves from probability (or those unable to tolerate even a trial separation), the following train of thought was doggedly pursued to its 'brilliant conclusion' .. Near the end of the previous paper on temporal curvature, a relation between the extension of space (a crude measure of spatial curvature due to the presence of mass) and a measure of temporal curvature was developed: X = 4π(tP/T) (1) where subscripts are omitted for clarity; extension is the ratio of Planck-time over period through a solid angle One expression of conventional uncertainty is: ∆ω∆t ≥ ½ (2) uncertainty in angular-frequency times uncertainty in time is greater than or equal to one-half With a little algebraic manipulation, this can be rewritten: 4π(∆t/∆T) ≥ 1 (3) Notice the form of (3) is almost the same as (1)! Now, let's examine things from a conventional perspective. Since extension is directly related to energy, there's some uncertainty associated with it: ∆X = ∆[4π(tP/T)] (4) = 4π(tP/∆T) (5) => ∆X∆t/tP = 4π(∆t/∆T) (6) 46

=> ∆X∆t/tP ≥ 1 (7) => ∆X∆t ≥ tP (8) uncertainty in spatial extension due to presence of mass times uncertainty in time is greater than or equal to Planck-time Planck-time is the lower-bound for uncertainties in space-strain and time. The purpose of this paper is not to 'bend to convention' – but to present things in a way that is acceptable to convention so that the previous papers (and any subsequent) are not rejected out of hand. The author prefers deterministic and non-reduction (holistic) views of quantum behavior. I say this not out of ego but sentiment similar to Einstein and De Broglie: our lack of full understanding forces us to employ statistical/probability analysis. Then we further justify that by unequivocally stating measurable entities have some inherent uncertainties associated with them. Of course there are errors associated with every measurement; of course there are always limits on our precision. The author does not argue against fundamental limits on time and space. It is the source of those limits that I question; it is the source of those 'inherent uncertainties' that I need to understand. I have a natural tendency to view things in terms of electric and magnetic flux because those can easily be visualized. Even if a time-varying 3D vector field is required, again, that can easily be visualized. In physical systems – energy form, location, and flow – are critical to understanding them. I have a natural tendency to attempt to visualize that also. But when there are gaps in our understanding, there are gaps in the visualizations which automatically beg to be filled. 47

Gravity can be visualized in the approach above. Even exchange of virtual particles and space-time foam can be visualized. But that does not validate them. It should be clear why quantum electrodynamics / quantum field theory is distasteful to me. You cannot question the math, but you can question the assumptions and techniques. In the first place, it's not a holistic approach. It wasn't invented to explain gravity or unify forces. The over-dependency on virtual particles is the second major issue. Take that away and what are you left with? A lattice of arcane math with questionable applicability. What is the source of uncertainty in (8)? Is it space-time foam or some inherent uncertainty? Is that uncertainty based on some probability density function (which is truly random – the conventional approach) or on some internal oscillation? Let's examine relation (1) again: X = 4π(tP/T) (1) Let's rewrite it in terms of Planck-time: XT/4π = tP (9) ∆X∆T/4π = tP from (5) ∆X∆t ≥ tP (8) Convention would reject the second line as meaningless without a ≥ symbol. They might accept uncertainty in extension being inversely proportional to uncertainty in period, but they would see the statement as incomplete without the conventional relation (we are 'born, bred, and raised' to acknowledge a lower bound on uncertainty). Convention might find the first line interesting but not ascribe any deep meaning to it. I doubt they would see the relationship between temporal and spatial curvatures – even if a conventionalist had derived and presented the equation. They would focus on the assumption of internal oscillation and reject any conclusions based on that. After all, we did not precisely define uncertainty in energy: 'Amplitude is associated with the variation in rest48

mass/energy.' Even if we did precisely define it (we might make an attempt later), there is the issue of validation. In any case, the physics 'atmosphere' is extremely hostile toward determinism and any aether-like associated proposals (a few will be discussed below). The third line is important to convention – if they want to unify gravity with electromagnetism (with or without quantum field theory and virtual particles). I'm certain that it can be derived within the conventional framework. I'm certain that it holds fundamental importance. A dear associate of mine, Mayeul Arminjon, has developed a model of space as a 'super-fluid ether'. It's intriguing, but space behaves more like a highly elastic solid with 'strain bubbles' as 'matter waves' (G S Sandhu). But even he misses the mark in a way: he defines elasticity to be 1/ε0 (with corresponding inertial constant μ0). This allows him to derive Maxwell's equations by correspondence of form (correspondence to stress equations). That's a bit contrived to me. If he had started with a mechanical definition of elasticity (such as in the previous paper) and derived Maxwell from that, I'd find him more believable. He also 'disproves' the primary postulates of special and general relativity thereby rejecting both theories – only later to state 'at higher velocities and corresponding high energy interactions, adequate study and analysis of the associated phenomenon can only be made by using the techniques of special theory of relativity and Wave Mechanics.' (p25, Elastic Continuum Theory of Electromagnetic Field & Strain Bubbles), so he's a little inconsistent and tautological. Perhaps some of his ideas can be salvaged and incorporated into an integrated model of space-time and elementary particles – without tautology and inconsistency. 49

Relation (8) will be dismissed because it was derived with unconventional assumptions. But the associated insights are profound and far reaching. If there's an equivalence between spatial and temporal curvatures, gravity can be analyzed exclusively as a distributed temporal distortion, energy can be stored there, and this opens the door to a fully unified and integrated model of space-time and elementary particles.

50

Chapter Nine – Uncertainty, Part Two The Nature of Uncertainty Salvatore G. Micheal, Faraday Group, [email protected], 11/22/2007 Position-momentum uncertainty is analyzed to be dependent only on two uncertainties: position and energy. That relation is found to be additive and a fourth uncertainty relation is discovered. The nature of uncertainty is discussed. As of this moment, there are three fundamental uncertainty relations: energy-time, extension-time, and momentumposition: ∆E∆t ≥ ħ/2 (1) ∆X∆t ≥ tP (2) ∆p∆x ≥ ħ/2 (3) Let’s examine the last in detail. First, we need some basic relations: p ≡ mv, p = mv, and ∆(ab) = 2(b∆a + a∆b) (4) Where the first is the standard definition of momentum (a vector identity), the second is the scalar version of that, and the third can be verified by the reader (make an assumption about symmetry). So, ∆p = ∆(mv) = 2(v∆m + m∆v) (5)  (v∆m + m∆v)∆x ≥ ħ/4 (6) For simplicity, let initial time and position equal zero: (v∆m + m(2((1/t)∆x + x/∆t)))∆x ≥ ħ/4 (7) Since mass is directly related to energy and ∆E/(ħ/2) ≥ 1/∆t (1), (v∆E/c2 + 2m((1/t)∆x + x∆E/(ħ/2)))∆x ≥ ħ/4 (8) which is of the form: (b∆E + c∆x)∆x ≥ ħ/4 (9) 51

where b and c are functions of v, m, t, and x (c here is not the speed of light).  b∆E∆x + c(∆x)2 ≥ ħ/4 (10) Now, adding something positive on the left does not change the direction of the relation (but we do lose some information – with proper choice of a, we’re ‘completing the square’): a(∆E)2 + b∆E∆x + c(∆x)2 > ħ/4 (11)  (a1∆E + a2∆x)2 > ħ/4 (12)  |a1∆E + a2∆x| > √ħ/2 (13)  a1∆E + a2∆x > √ħ/2 (14) since a1 and a2 are positive functions of v, m, t, and x (with proper choice of coordinates). (a2 = √c, a1 = b/a2, a = a12 = b2/c, b = (v/c2 + 4mx/ħ), and c = 2m/t.) (15) This implies that the ‘momentum-position’ uncertainty relation is actually an energy-position uncertainty relation that is linear-additive – not multiplicative! And since energy is directly related to extension, a1∆X(ħ/2tP) + a2∆x > √ħ/2 (16) This gives us four fundamental uncertainty relations: two that are multiplicative and two that are additive; one that is bounded below by ‘Planck-energy’, another that is bounded below by Planck-time, and two that are bounded below by linear functions of position-uncertainty: ∆E∆t ≥ ħ/2 (1) ∆X∆t ≥ tP (2) ∆E > √ħ/2a1 – (a2/a1)∆x (17) ∆X > tP/√ħa1 – (2tPa2/ħa1)∆x (18) If we rewrite (1) and (2) to isolate energy and extension and think in terms of distortions in space-time, uncertainty in 52

energy/extension is bounded below by linear functions of uncertainty in 1/t. This highlights two things: uncertainty in time directly ‘forces’ a lower bound on energy/extension – and – the reciprocal nature between space and time. ‘Random distortions in space’ provide a lower bound on uncertainty; concurrently, ‘random distortions in time’ provide a lower bound on uncertainty. No wonder the ‘space-time foamers’ feel justified in their approach. (Actually, energy-time uncertainty is not bounded by linear functions – UEt is bounded below by hyperbolic functions in time. We could have applied the same approach above to UEt (completing the square), but those linear functions would not be unique (because we are free to choose an infinite variety of a-s and c-s, the squared term coefficients). So the nature of energy-position uncertainty is fundamentally different than energy-time uncertainty. One is bounded by linear functions; the other is bounded by hyperbolic functions. That ‘right there’ is evidence against space-time foam (because uncertainty is not symmetric between space and time). (Or, that is evidence of a weak-link between space and time.) The other ‘juicy’ piece of information we get from above is that energyposition uncertainty suggests negative energy states are bounded above by symmetric linear functions of position uncertainty. (Mirror the linear functions, shaped like a delta, through the position axis.) Negative energy is suggested by a2 = -√c being a valid solution in (15) above.) It appears uncertainty has one of three sources: internal oscillation, space-time foam, or inherent randomness. We have not made explicit – exactly how internal oscillation could exhibit itself in terms of the fundamental relations above. That is our next task. If the source of UEt is exclusively internal oscillation, the simplest natural model is sinusoidal: 53

∆E = ħ/2t(sin2(ωt–ω0t0)+1) (19) where ω0 represents unknowable internal phase at t0 – our ‘measurement time’ and ω is relativistic angular frequency (E/ħ). The reader can verify the upper bound for this function is ħ/2t. There’s no reason to use ≥ in the relation above since we’re defining uncertainty here to be solely based on internal oscillation. Any measurement uncertainty is separate. In a sense, we’re defining ∆t = t(sin2(ωt–ω0t0)+1) with the stipulation above. But that’s distracting at this point so we’ll focus on energy: Et = E ± ∆E (19) = ħω ± ħ/2t(sin2(ωt–ω0t0)+1) (20) energy of a particle, at a certain measurement time t0, is relativistic energy with uncertainty defined above In practice, we can replace t by ∆t, our uncertainty in time, but we’d still have to deal with internal phase, so let’s focus on the form of (20). We can analyze in terms of frequency: Et = ħ(ω ± 1/2t(sin2(ωt–ω0t0)+1)) (21) So what we’re really saying is: ∆ω = 1/2t(sin2(ωt–ω0t0)+1) (22) energy-time uncertainty is dependent on angular-frequency uncertainty which is a decaying periodic function of timeuncertainty and initial phase Here, time-uncertainty is not assumed to be caused by ‘random distortions in space-time’ but rather simply – caused by measurement uncertainty. So we’ve arrived at a completely deterministic model of uncertainty caused essentially by unknown internal phase. If we could create an electron beam, all with the same internal phase, we could verify above as distinct from inherent randomness. The point of the discussion above is not simply to 54

discuss the possible causes of uncertainty – but to present internal oscillation as a viable alternative. It is hoped the reader now has a deeper understanding and appreciation of uncertainty and its forms.

55

Chapter Ten – The Source of Uncertainty Convention says the source of uncertainty is inherent randomness. Last chapter, we proposed the source of energytime uncertainty is uncertainty in angular-frequency which has its root in unknown internal phase. Admittedly, the function describing ∆ω was somewhat arbitrarily assigned/constructed to conform to the lower bound of energy uncertainty. But the fact it could be constructed at all indicates the possibility of veracity. Now we need to show some theoretical evidence that the function has potential basis in physical reality (in other words – justify it) – or – investigate other candidate sources of uncertainty. First, let’s look at (3) from chapter 4. A conventionalist would never express energy-time uncertainty that way because it implies internal oscillation. But let’s rewrite and ponder it: 4π∆t ≥ ∆T (1) uncertainty in time is bounded below by uncertainty in period The more I consider that relation, the more I think it has no great importance. All it really says is: uncertainty in measured time is bounded below by the uncertainty in some quality of the particle under examination. It’s a fundamental statement about measurement-error – not a fundamental relation about the nature of elementary particles. When we write it like this: ∆E∆t ≥ ħ/2 (2) it is fundamental because we know: E = hν = ħω (3) which provides some insights into elementary particles and the nature of uncertainty. When we watch a pendulum swinging, it’s beautiful because of its elegance. It’s also beautiful because it illustrates gravity and 56

the conversion/conservation of energy. Energy oscillates in form – between potential and kinetic. Energy is never lost. Energy, as expressed above, has two parts: angular-momentum and frequency. But this ignores energy in electric flux and energy in extension. Some years ago, I investigated oscillatory electric field – to simulate the hydrogen atom under that assumption. It’s a good idea to explain tunneling, but the size of the resulting atom/orbit doesn’t agree with Bohr. So we are left with only three possible sources of uncertainty based on oscillation: ħ, ω, or X. As stated, the function describing ∆ω is arbitrary and doesn’t satisfy a required physical connection (yet). If ω oscillates – like an FM radio signal – then there’d be some physical basis for ∆ω. But before we pursue that angle (pun intended), let’s consider the other candidates. We haven’t seriously considered an oscillatory ħ – but it’s possible – and would explain its presence and dependence in energy-time uncertainty nicely. If the simple pendulum is an analog of ħ, then perhaps energy oscillates in form between twist and extension: perhaps the twist in space oscillates outof-phase with the extension such that extension energy maximum corresponds to twist energy minimum. Some clock pendulums are made to twist this way – a spring stores the angular momentum and vice versa. Previously, I proposed energy oscillates between the e-m field and extension because of the Poynting vector – which indicates power flow. But there was the issue of Bohr disagreement (which was ignored at the time). So at this point, it’s down to the three aforementioned candidates. I believe the reason most would dismiss X oscillating is that they assume particles would 57

radiate gravitational energy in that scenario. And there’s a serious problem with ħ oscillating (through zero energy): overall energy would appear to disappear periodically. So if ħ oscillates, there must be restrictions on that. Those restrictions must be ‘built in’ the structure of space-time and theoretically explainable (that goes for any of the three candidates). So perhaps the best candidate at present is ω. If ω oscillates, then perhaps a useful analogy is the ‘radio on a rotating satellite’ or ‘horn on the end of a spinning string’. In the first, (if the satellite’s moving fast enough), you get a doppler shift on your receiver. In the second, you get a doppler shift in your ears (you hear the sound oscillate – up and down). This is not a justification of the idea – just a couple illustrations. Perhaps the oscillation is caused by a disturbance. When a sensitive dynamical system is disturbed (disturbed from some equilibrium), it typically oscillates around some ‘attractor’ (stable region). So from a systems point of view, it’s definitely possible for a disturbed electron/proton to oscillate around some stable frequency (assuming those particles are something like sensitive dynamical systems). Imagine particles as water droplets in zero gravity. Initially, they are spherical due to cohesion and surface tension. If you disturb one by trying to move it, it flattens where you touch it – then moves away – oscillating in shape (the shape oscillates in various forms of an ellipsoid). If there was a characteristic frequency associated with the original spherical drop, I’m sure the frequency would be disturbed because frequency is tied to wavelength and wavelength is associated with size/shape. Every simple object has a characteristic frequency associated with it (basically – de Broglie’s hypothesis). This is the ‘ring of the bell’ when you strike one with a hammer (impulse input). If you imagine particles as little ringing bells that can change 58

shape (under input), it’s easy to imagine their characteristic frequencies changing under input. It’s basic systems theory that a transfer function can be determined by impulse input. The transfer function of a system represents system structure. So, structure can be discovered with impulse input. The only ‘problem’ with that is – an impulse can only be approximated in practice (nothing can impart infinite force/power instantaneously). That would destroy a system anyways. But it turns out physics and systems are not totally disjoint ;). A dynamical system is one where past inputs affect present output or state. If we imagine elementary particles as tiny simple dynamical systems that are inherently stable (due to qualities of space-time), physical inputs (such as photon absorption or flux interaction) will clearly disturb those systems. If there are some characteristics that are fixed (spin, charge, and rest energy), then there are some that are flexible (relativistic energy, extension, and omega). Those flexible characteristics could oscillate (dependent on constraints listed above) or there could be just one that oscillates. Clearly, from a systems vantage, elementary particles are ‘disturbable’ with at least one oscillatory characteristic. It’s not a stretch to tentatively assign that to ω. So right now, there are two competing primary assumptions about elementary particles: inherent stability vs inherent randomness. Let’s use Occam’s razor to cut away the fat:

59

Associated Assumptions Inherent Stability Inherent Randomness e.p.s are stable simple e.p.s are probability waves dynamical systems random behavior is due to random behavior is due to unknown internal phase implicit probability density functions state variables are explicitly state variables are deterministic interdependent random variables uncertainty is due to physical uncertainty is due to bounds bounds and measurement on frequency analysis uncertainty e.p.s are ‘distinguishable’ by e.p.s are ‘distinguishable’ only internal phase and any in their flexible characteristics consequences of past disturbances According to Occam’s razor – the primary assumption with the larger number of associated assumptions (given all else is equal) – should be thrown out. There are five high-level assumptions associated with each primary. There are low-level assumptions for each high-level assumption: e.p.s are stable simple dynamical systems ‘stable simple’ is defined by constraints on space-time past inputs affect present state e.p.s are probability waves waves are constrained by setting past inputs don’t affect present state

60

random behavior is due to unknown internal phase internal phase is based on relativistic frequency frequency is based on internal oscillation random behavior is due to implicit probability density fcns density functions are based on setting state variables are explicitly deterministic relationships are defined by qualities of space-time state variables are interdependent random variables relationships are bounded by frequency analysis uncertainty is due to physical bounds and measurement unc. physical bounds exist at some extremely low resolution uncertainty is due to bounds on frequency analysis frequency analysis applies to elementary particles e.p.s are ‘distinguishable’ by internal phase and any consequences of past disturbances internal phase is unobservable or currently misinterpreted e.p.s are dynamical systems e.p.s are ‘distinguishable’ only in their flexible characteristics e.p.s are not dynamical systems e.p.s are indistinguishable in inflexible characteristics Let’s regroup and delete the repetitions: 61

Inherent Stability: e.p.s are stable simple dynamical systems ‘stable simple’ is defined by constraints on space-time random behavior is based on internal oscillation internal oscillation is directly unobservable or currently misinterpreted uncertainty is due to physical bounds and measurement unc. physical bounds exist at some extremely low resolution Inherent Randomness: e.p.s are probability waves waves are constrained by setting past inputs don’t affect present state state variables are interdependent random variables relationships are bounded by frequency analysis I’ve tried my best to regroup both sets of assumptions deleting repetitions and implicit assumptions. At the same time, I’ve deleted intermediate assumptions. The tally ‘at the end of it all’ is six vs five. It’s clear why convention prefers the latter set though it ‘wins’ by only one assumption. Examining the historical evolution of physics, it was more than Occam’s razor that decided the preferred set. It was the rejection of the aether, determinism, and the bent toward reduction which impelled physics toward probability. I’ve devised a test which should give some evidence one way or the other. It’s possible that conventionalists could ‘pervert’ the test by defining everything 62

in terms of angles and probabilities, but that’s up to them. They have three choices: dismiss the test as meaningless, explain the test in terms of probability (which is likely ;), or accept the results as confirmation of inherent stability. (Let’s do the experiment and see what happens!)

63

Chapter Eleven – Energy Distribution The previous chapter [on systems] would have made a good finish for the short book, but as things go – good ideas tend to take on a life of their own. I’ve always been concerned with total energy and energy distribution within elementary particles – that was the basis for my first attempt at this theory, but that first attempt was too ambitious, ill conceived, and lacked appropriate insights. I proposed an inner structure for e.p.s – depending on luck (a lucky guess about inner structure) and the few insights I possessed at the time.. I won’t say that I was incorrect – just too ambitious in attempting to explain too many things.. So this chapter is not written in iridium – I won’t stake my meager reputation on the veracity of it, but it seems to make sense in the bigger picture of inherent stability; it’s consistent with the idea of internal oscillation. We’ve previously proposed total energy is distributed in three components: ET = EX + Es + Ee (1) = (ħ/2tP)X + (ħ/2)/T0 + e2Z0/T0 (2) = E0/γ + E0/4π + E0/2π (3) = (1/γ + 3/4π)E0 (4) = ((4π/γ)/(4π/γ + 3) + 3/(4π/γ + 3))ET (5) These relations assume a couple things: that these energies are distinct (there’s no oscillation or sharing between them), they hold for all e.p.s, and under annihilation – the first term dominates (the others vanish). Line (1) describes energy in extension/temporal-curvature, spin, and electric-flux. Line (2) is more explicit and is based on earlier derivations. Line (3) is a simplification based on known relations. Lines (4) and (5) are algebraic simplifications. Line (5) is interesting in that it illustrates the relationship between relativistic and non64

relativistic forms of energy in e.p.s. It does not highlight the split of energy between spin and electric-flux because both of those are static quantities. But it illustrates the limiting nature of the static fraction – energy can never wholly reside in temporal-curvature because there will always be a small fraction in spin-flux – regardless of kinetic energy.. This is an alternative view compared to the ‘limiting nature of c’. The nagging question in my mind has been the ‘confinement mechanism’: how do e.p.s ‘stay together’ – why don’t they simply dissipate? Perhaps the answer is in the extreme inelasticity of space. The numerical value of Y0 is extremely high which indicates space has a natural tendency to ‘crush the living daylights’ out of e.p.s. Considering this, it’s amazing they exist at all. So, these ‘strain bubbles’ must exert an internal pressure balancing the crushing force of space. (The question then becomes – where is the balancing point and why? This is equivalent to asking e.p. radius or volume. It’s also equivalent to asking energy density or ‘shape’ of e.p.s in terms of energy. It should be obvious I think the answer is in the qualities of space-time. The answer to this question must be ‘phrased’ in a non-tautological way. The answer is ‘there’ waiting to be discovered. I’m waiting for inspiration.) If disturbances affect ω and therefore E, there must be a mechanism to restore equilibrium. Since X0 = 4πC0 ≡ 4πtP/T0 and X = 4πC where C is relativistic temporal-curvature, the dissipation must be in the form of minute gravity waves (C = (tP/h)E so C is a relativistic quantity like X and we’ve established gravity can be treated exclusively as distributed temporal-curvature). These must be released such that uncertainty in ω conforms to 1/2t(sin2(ωt-ω0t0)+1) or similar function. (This proposed phenomenon makes sense, but so does retention of disturbance energy – if there’s no mechanism for 65

release. The experiment proposed above could be extended to include various distances between MD3 and T so that the idea can be tested. If disturbance energy is dissipated over time, and that time is significantly larger than the Plank-time, then we should be able to measure restoration to equilibrium.) The nature of ET above indicates photons cannot possess electric-flux, have zero intrinsic spin (modern e.p. physics asserts this), and are ‘pure’ waves of temporal-curvature. Perhaps these ‘travelling strain bubbles’ oscillate out-of-phase with e-m field vectors. ET does not explain neutrinos unless they are travelling strain bubbles with no oscillation. ET does not explain why there are two or three E0 – a thorough analysis still needs to be performed on the ‘three properties’ table (of C, μ, and Q): C μ Q -24 electron 6.6606*10 μe -e proton 1.2229*10-20 μp e Before string theory, multiple dimensions, and exotic geometries, I proposed e.p.s have structure based on the structure of space-time. Looking at C alone in the table above hints at this. The coefficients are almost 6/9 and 11/9. Is there some deep meaning in these numbers? Perhaps. Perhaps not. 9 is 32 where 3 is the number of spatial dimensions we perceive. But because there are only two stable e.p.s, we don’t have enough information to say any more.. My original idea was that space provides a rectangular box where standing waves can reside – in one direction or the other. But the ‘box idea’ is equivalent to extra dimensions – is it not? If the ‘box’ resides in ‘time’, then time needs extra dimensions to accommodate it (which is an extremely ‘cool idea’ – but I must resist temptation). Let’s try to explain the table above within the four 66

dimensions of space-time – before we appeal to multiple dimensions. Before we discuss the conventional approach to that, let’s talk a bit about ω and internal oscillation. ω could represent the angular-frequency of a spherical standing wave within e.p.s. A standing wave of what? The ‘only thing that makes sense’ is a wave of temporal-curvature. A standing wave of spin or electric-flux makes no sense. So perhaps e.p.s are: spherical standing waves of temporal-curvature bounded by the extreme inelasticity of space possessing discrete twist and electric-flux. This year, a very important (conventional) paper was published and arXived. It’s entitled: Statistical Understanding of Quark and Lepton Masses in Gaussian Landscapes. The authors are: Hall, Salem, and Watari. Partial funding for the research was supplied by the National Science Foundation and the US Department of Energy. Any project that can acquire both NSF and DOE funding is obviously important (to convention). After skimming the small book, I tend to agree with them – within the framework of convention. If the Standard Model is correct, if the approach of string theorists is correct, if reduction is a basic premise of the multiverse, if multiple dimensions are compacted in our and other universes, if the multiverse exists,.. Maybe you get my point. That’s a lot of “ifs”. And they’re not just any “ifs” – they’re big-fundamental “ifs” about the nature of our universe and all others. As I was reading the paper, I got the distinct impression that “this is a paper on high-energy physics and cosmology”. When you try to explain all particles, no matter how short lived, there is little choice but to employ a framework such as the one convention has. The paper is beautiful in its consistency and scope. But it’s a monster in implementation. If you can absorb the concepts without getting 67

bogged down by the math, it’s actually not that complicated. Try to read/skim it. The arXiv number is: 0707.3446v2. Nuclei behave as extended objects (objects with size), but protons and electrons behave as point-masses. The fact nuclei exhibit size is not a huge mystery to me: protons cannot exist near each other because of electrostatic repulsion. The ‘spacers’ in nuclei are neutrons. They also act as ‘glue’. (So, of course, do protons.) The problem with convention is to automatically assign a particle to that: gluon. Anyways, nuclei are extended basically because of proton repulsion. They have geometry, excitation modes, energy release modes, and of course – the fascinating quality of stability/instability. If we examine the alpha-particle (helium nucleus), this highlights the differences between convention and determinism. Convention says that particle has a finite (non-zero) probability of changing identity or decay. Determinism says: that particle will never decay unless it is unstable or disturbed. In my opinion, they’re stable and – no matter how long you wait, an alpha will remain an alpha will remain an alpha. Some nuclei are unstable because of geometry or vibrational/spin modes, some nuclei are unstable because of (relative) lack of ‘glue’, and some nuclei are unstable because they’re simply too big. Nuclei are fascinating systems, but they’re not elementary particles – just as short-lived particles, no matter how fundamental they may seem, are not e.p.s. A good example is the neutron. A free neutron is unstable: it decays in about eleven seconds. A bound neutron is stable – if the particular nucleus binding it is stable. A free neutron always decays into the products: proton, electron, and antineutrino. They’re obviously composite particles; they’re obviously not elementary .. An interesting challenge is to model the interior of a neutron deterministically, but more important presently is the issue of elementary particle size. 68

The Compton-wavelength, identified by h = m0cλ0, has been dismissed by convention as meaningless because if e.p.s are point-masses, λ0 ‘obviously’ means nothing in terms of radius or anything geometric. In the process of looking for e.p. size, I’ve found interesting features; I’ve found that the assumption: e.p.s behave as point-masses implies they are point-masses – is basically incorrect. E.p.s appear to be point-masses because they’re so small. The question of size arises from the consideration of balancing forces: the crushing inelastic force of space – balanced with the internal pressure of e.p.s. If e.p.s are spherical standing waves of temporal-curvature (with twist and charge), they must have boundary. The natural reference to use is Compton-wavelength. Y0 is already in units of force – we don’t have to modify it in any way. (We’re examining the equation: Fext/A = Fint/A and trying to determine the nature of A.) If e.p.s have size, the best first guess is based on Compton-wavelength: Y0 = E0/aλ0 (6) where a is a dimensionless scaling constant (we assume the equation must possess in order to ‘work’). Now, E = hν = hc/λ which implies: Y0 = hc/aλ02 (7) where a can be solved for the electron/proton and works out to be about 10-45/10-39. So, if e.p.s are Compton-spheres, they are only fractions thereof because of the extremely small scaling factors. What about torii? The surface area of a torus can be controlled by adjusting relative radii, so we may be able to use that model for e.p. shape. The surface area of a very thin torus can be approximated by: 4π2rprm where rp is the primary (larger) radius and rm is the smaller/minor radius. Since λ0 >> lP, we can assign the following: 2π2λ0lP (here we’re assuming λ0 is the primary 69

diameter – just for simplification). Now, in order to get that form in (7), we must divide E0 by lP (assuming rest energy is somehow packed into a Planck-length – giving e.p.s a ‘fighting chance’ to balance the crushing force of space), but there’s still a scaling factor we must assume is there to ‘make things work’ (size wise): Y0 = hc/a(2π2λ0lP) (8) Note that λ0 appears below because of E0 and lP appears below because of our assumption above. When we solve for a, we get a = 2lP/πλ0 = X0/2π2 which implies: Y0 = hc/(2π2λ0(X0/2π2)lP) (9) Which implies – if e.p.s are torii, they are ultra-thin torii – with minor radii much smaller than the Planck-length. The ‘interesting’ feature of this scenario is that when we plug in the first value of a into (8), we get: Y0 = hc/(4πlP2) (10) where the denominator is the surface area of a Planck-sphere! So even if we assume e.p.s are shaped like ultra-thin torii, the shape we’re forced to accept is the sphere! It seems we cannot escape it. Of course, when we start with that assumption, (10) is easy to derive. The Planck-sphere seems inescapable.. If indeed e.p.s are energy ‘packed into’ Planck-spheres, that’s why they appear to be point-masses – and why λ0 seems to have nothing to do with particle radius. Is λ0 anywhere in (10)? No. (10) proposes all non-composite particles with spin and charge have Planckradius. What makes them different? We’re left with very few choices: wave-number inside the boundary and perhaps the orientation of μ with respect to ħ. (10) explains why protons and electrons have the same charge magnitude (treated as a surface charge over the same area). And again, why λ0 is merely a relational factor with no geometric meaning (λ 0 has meaning when we equate it with c/ν0). Of course, explaining 70

the relative magnitudes of magnetic moments is a chore determinism cannot deny – and – defining a suitable κ, or wave-number, that fits the framework above – is required. (Many would point out that we defined Y0 in terms of Planckmeasures and it’s very easy to derive (10) from the definition. But quite honestly, I had forgotten the relation lP = ctP until very recently. The pattern of development above is actually how I derived the Planck-sphere. I was avoiding it as best I could precisely because – many would balk at the conception. I had started the derivation based on balancing forces, but noticed that area on the RHS seemed to fall quite easily into the denominator. I realize that the equation is incomplete in that area is not expressed on both sides as intended. But the form on the RHS is what’s interesting and in order to ‘make the units work’, we must choose some length-measure (to reduce energy into force). I preferred the Compton-wavelength because I had previously used it to define relativistic-measures. I think one main reason most theoreticians have discarded determinism is because they ‘get stuck’ on some particular point – like the geometric meaninglessness of λ0 – and basically give up on all associated concepts. But the point of this book and those previous – is to ‘run’ with the idea as long as possible – until it is proven inconsistent or invalid. I’ve had some limited successes in explaining decay patterns in nuclear physics. And the concepts presented in this book (albeit presented in a nonsophisticated way) are remarkably consistent, intuitive, and seem to have physical justification. I’ve personally seen a very strict and conservative nuclear engineer teach E = hν (about particle energy) but ignore the oscillatory implications (I proposed some internal oscillation but he balked and moved on). So evidently, conventioners treat E = hν somewhat like I treat λ0 – useful but not meaningful. Many would say I’ve created a ‘house of cards’ – a lattice of assumptions which is easily destroyed by a single removal. But I’ve tried to be very 71

careful, restrictive, and explicit in employing any assumption. The fact we can explain physical things deterministically at all alludes to the possibility of veracity (as we stated in chapter six). I was fairly confident that I could not derive a function for uncertainty in omega – that makes sense. I’m personally very skeptical of both determinism and probability (for different reasons). “If it could be done, it would have already been done.” – is how part of me and many feel about determinism. But.. But perhaps most missed some crucial insight required to ‘put it all together’ (like gravity = distributed temporalcurvature). If an average nim-rod like me can stumble around and discover something fundamental, just imagine what a brilliant guy/gal could do – if they carried the ideas long/far enough. ;) κ should be dimensionless and larger for heavier particles. The inverse of C or X does not work because that’s larger for lighter particles. If we try νtP, that actually equals C (getting lost in the numbers here ;). So, if we use C, we need a scaling factor that also ‘integerizes’ it. In order to accommodate our significant digits in e.p. masses, let’s use a 10n integer for κe and derive κp based on that. If we choose 1000000 for κe and our scaling factor is πα where α = 58.6875025189, then κp = 1836081243 (give or take a few waves ;). Until we derive a more intuitive and physically-related κ, this will have to do for now. It illustrates the flexibility/arbitrariness of this factor. All κ ‘needs to do’ is be an integer (for both electron and proton) and display the ratio of masses exactly (to known precision) of mp/me. (This is not equivalent to multiple dimensions compacted to undetectability. Sure, we’re saying we have a wave smaller than anything we can ever measure. But it’s qualitatively different than proposing some extra dimensions compacted to ‘nothingness’. A scaling factor is like a renormalization factor – and we’ve tried to avoid that. But in 72

the process, we’ve arrived at a Planck-sized object with internal structure. In theory, we can never verify that. But theory’s been known to be wrong. ;) A note about hc. Is there some deep meaning about the product? It’s basically spin-energy times the speed of light. If we look at it in (10), we see that it’s bounded by the Plancksphere. So, spin-energy times the limit is bounded by the Planck-sphere. There’s nothing remarkable about it – it simply begs the question: what’s the purpose of c in the equation? Does it mean spin is revolving on a second axis at the speed of light? Perhaps; perhaps not. The fact we were able to derive a size for e.p.s is ample justification for the form of (10). If we have time and space (pun intended), we’ll consider any ‘deep meaning’ of hc again – later. So let’s summarize our findings. If our assumptions hold, elementary particles are: spherical standing waves of temporal-curvature, bounded by a sphere of Planck-radius (defined by Y0), containing an integral number of standing waves, possessing discrete twist analogous to spin, possessing discrete electric-flux, and possibly possessing an alignment or anti-alignment of spin and magnetic moment. (The final statement is introduced to account for the notion of positive and negative charge.) It may seem like a ‘monster’ to some (especially probability-reductioners), but it’s preferable to multiple dimensions and random character. The ‘only’ problem that comes to mind is the double-slit phenomenon. I need to think about it. ;) 73

(Enough? ;) Well.. even with an infinitesimal ‘core’, the flux is extended. It’s possible the electron ‘detects’ both slits simultaneously via its electric field. This could explain doubleslit phenomena – as long as the physical extension of electricflux is large enough to accommodate all double slit experiments. So it’s possible.. ..The only two ways to successfully attack probability are: create a sophisticated and accessible formalism such as the arXived paper mentioned above, but bent toward determinism – or – attack uncertainty and provide a viable alternative. I don’t have the formal training to provide the former; the best I can do is attempt the latter. I’ve tried to do that within a consistent framework. I’ve tried to refresh the ‘tired old ideas’ of determinism and loosely – the aether. I’ve asked Mayeul Arminjon to mentor me because I felt I needed his formal training to give some conventional credibility to those ideas (assuming I could acquire some of it from him). But he’s too busy with his own pursuits. And no matter what area of science you focus on – you have a necessity to ‘pay your dues’ in order to pursue your own interests (typically, you must follow a research path that is not really to your tastes or interests – only later allowing you to focus on those). Being on the ‘outside’ has advantages and disadvantages. I’m free to focus on something until I ‘drop dead’. But I lack mentoring, guidance, and funding.. I’ve read many-a-crackpot and feel unfairly lumped with those brave souls. I’ve gleaned some precious nuggets from my meager middle-class public education (such as systems and error analysis). I’ve tried my best to pursue this track from a scientific/test/disprove/invalidate perspective. Admittedly, I’ve proposed a couple untestable ideas, but most seem to ‘jump and dance’ of their own accord (acquire a life of their own).. I have this insatiable curiosity; I’m naturally a researcher, but.. I didn’t have the discipline or ‘smarts’ to get 74

all ‘As’ in university (I think it was the latter). Once I realized that, I sort of ‘gave up’ (for a time). By the time I came to the point of applying to graduate schools, I couldn’t get accepted into any program that inspired me. Systems wouldn’t have me, physics was clearly out,.. What were my options? Work as a technician and pursue physics in my ‘free time’? That’s what I did for several years – only to be dismissed and ignored by convention – and – dismissed and ignored by those that were not. It’s funny – but not .. When I was young, it was my dream to leave a positive lasting significant contribution to humanity. In my book on systems – I feel I’ve done that. But it’s been my secret desire to help physics ‘see the light’ as well.. My brother insists I’m too ambitions in these regards. Perhaps so. My new (and only) baby boy has just come into the world. New life is always amazing.. I don’t know if I can be a good father – all I can do is try my best .. Sometimes I feel like such a complete and utter failure in life – such a loser ;) ..I had ‘friends’ who criticized and inspired many points in this book. I’m not looking for sympathy or pity .. I would like to be understood. I would like to be appreciated (a little bit). I would like these ideas to be treated without ego or arrogance. They deserve it; I don’t own them. As I wrote Humanity Thrive! for the innocent of the world – I write this book for the open-minded .. I feel we’re on the verge of a deterministic renaissance. For near a century, we’ve doggedly pursued probability-reduction. We’ve tried to justify it with every result and observation. But isn’t it nigh time we gave chance (pun intended) to determinism? Research the indicators – they’re there. Bless your patience if you’ve made it this far. We’ve got a long way to go baby – a long way to go.. 75

Chapter Twelve – Eulogy/Christening The previous four chapters were written about a year ago just before Arthur was born. They were intended for Gravitation and Elementary Particles, but that book was never published in paper form. My wife insists I ignored her and “treated her like garbage” at that time. My justification to her was/is the following (it was difficult to explain in English and broken Thai – to someone who has a middle-school education): who else is working on this theory? As far as I can tell, no one. Who will publish this book? No one but me. Why is it important? If the central premise is correct, physics has been ‘wasting time’ for about a century and needs correction. It’s not just for theory – that I’ve been working on it: it’s for all the erroneous textbooks and misguided students. Many of the concepts ‘fall out of the woodwork’ (or percolate if you prefer) after you decide on Y0 and X. I didn’t invent them – they appeared before my eyes after deciding on Y0 and X. Good examples of this are temporal curvature and inertia. The more I studied the theory (and its implications), the more I came to realize the centrality of temporal curvature and how simply things can be explained from that perspective. The new definition of inertia above simply popped into my mind – from the new perspective. So please don’t make my “treat like garbage” of my wife be for nothing. Dear reader, please consider the theory with an open mind. I know, I slam convention and insult them with every possible taunt. But consider how I have been treated over the years: ignored, dismissed, and ill-mentored. Simply, no one cared. Should I give them any slack? To me, they earned every insult. Should this ‘baby’ be aborted before it’s born? That’s up to you and history to decide. Read thoughtfully. Consider. 76