Quantum Aether Dynamics

[arkain101]

 

In general "Quantum Aether Dynamics" is a theory completion of string theory.

 

It replaces space-time with space-resonance and accurately calculates and describes all the fundamental forces and 'particles'.

 

To become familiar to the theory

 

Secrets of the Aether - Aether Physics Model has great summerized explainations.

 

For a full on theory paper: http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf

 

In my opinion this is the philisophical correct model required for a fundamental theory. The actual hardcore physics of the theory is out of my league but none the less it agrees with my logic for a model.

 

In this thread I would like to discuss why this theory is accurate and how this type of a model is logically required. I encourage particpants of this thread to share explainations for or against this theory.

 

I have been developing a philosphical theory of sorts to form a guide of how to develope the most applicable model.

 

At best it can be described as a theory of "relative reasoning".

 

Lets begin with breaking things down to basics, reasoning relative to the nature of the universe with a beginning.

 

{Begin Process}

At the birth of the universe there are known theories of the version of physics involved. Singularities, big bang.

 

Lets consider the universe prior to its beginning was one and whole and with out space and time.

 

The question is: How is one capable to logically seperate something one and hole, without creating two individual and seperated parts?

 

The best logical assumption I was capable to come up with is to create mirrored parity. That is, to take the thing that is whole and create a single system with twin mirrored identities. This is similar to having A clock with two sets have hands. One hand on the clock spinning counter-clockwise and the other hand on the clock spinning clockwise. If we assume each hand is correct at displaying the time and direction of time and having the hands are moving in symetry, then to measure this clock represents zero time and (bare with me) zero space.

 

In order to generate time and space from this one and whole source, is imagine something similar to to create two clocks facing eachother.

 

One clock spinning clockwise, and the other spinning counter-clockwise, and still consider them at whole (null time) but when consideration of observing them independently we have time, and a given distance between them and we have space. Each hand is spinning a different direction relative to which clock is observed, but while viewing both clocks the hands are now in symetry and spinning together.

 

A singular fundamental system can not contain compound measurement. That which can not be measured is not part of a space - resonance universe. So the fundamental system must be whole and yet compound. Thus we have mirrored parity or if your prefer duality.

 

At this stage I have the assumption of the first fundamental model capable to describe a birth of the universe from something whole and singular, and the very first step required to do so.

 

At this point we will assume that this unit is akin to a fundamental planck length. I assume the space and time dimensions involved within this unit can only be affected by manipulating the angles involved between each twin to create change while maintaing the over size and such of the system.

 

Let us call this unit of length and time the basic fabric required for space-time.

 

This relative reasoning is to reason through the most logical stages of evolution of the universe, starting from its birth. We have the first fundamental cell of the universe. (This is very similar to Cells and DNA, copy split and devide). Now the universe must simply copy mirror and devide. Either in a growing bit by bit formation or a rapid exploding fashion.

 

With relative reasoning we work with something similar to:

start with 1 (one whole) and move to mirroring the system [math](+1,-1) [/math] (one duality) then grow the mirrored system [math](+1,-1)^2[/math] (two duality) then, [math](+1,-1)^3[/math] (three duality) etc...

 

Now all we need is a Driving force for each system and a fine structure constant to apply to each unit, and continue in that fashion.

 

{END PROCESS}

 

In general we human creates are more akin to taking things apart to find their structure; to work down to basics, than we are to create basics and work back up. However, when you compare results and models in both directions and find that they align in a similar fashion it is to take note of.

 

This is when I stumbled across quantum aether dynamics and researched it find it was quite accurately the model I was striving to build in the reverse fashion. From scrath to macro, instead of macro to scratch. I chose to attempt this method as an experiment to see just where it would lead.

 

This is why I conclude that at this point that the quantum aether physics model is absolutly worth looking into and studying, it is identical to the model predicted in this form of relative reasoning.

 

It has made great success in its predictions and calculations and it appears to be on the right track with.

 

In this thread I will continue on by elabortating on portions of this quantum aether theory via relative reasoning to forumlate its logical accuracy and physics related accuracy.

 

I encourage any form of contribution to this thread.

 

 

[arkain101]

I went to work last night dertimed to find a model that would at least unite one aspect between quantum mechanics and general relativity.

 

After I had learned a crucial part in physics I didnt understand before it made a world of difference.

 

It worked out better than I had thought.

 

Moderatly using this concept of quantum aether dynamics model I have just found a model that unifies physics. It cleanly and clearly puts together quantum physics and general relativity.

 

I pleed the reader here to help me collect and list the all known fundamental particles.

 

As we do I will show and explain how they fit into the model and create forces exactly like general relativity.

 

It turns out there is possibly 22 planes. 11 planes and 11 anti planes, and each plane can be represented with 3 spacial dimension. Obviously individually at 1d, 2d, and 3d spacial representation to accurately measure and describe them.

 

It is of course only theoretical, but the way in which it connects and flows is so perfect that I am going to persue this.

 

I am requesting that you help me fill in the blanks since I do not know all the particles. I will post some models and graphs showing where some blanks are filled and others are not.

 

Just posting a reference list:

 

Quarks:

__Isospin Flavour Name Symbol Charge / e Mass / MeV.c-2

1 + 1/2 Iz= +1/2__Up____u ___+2/3___1.5 to 4.0

1 − 1/2 Iz= −1/2__Down__d____−1/3___4 to 8

2 − 1/2 S= −1___Strange_s____−1/3__80 to 130

2 + 1/2 C= 1____Charm___c____+2/3__1150 to 1350

3 − 1/2 B′= −1___Botto___b____−1/3___4100 to 4400

3 + 1/2 T= 1_____Top____t_____+ 2/3__171400 ± 2100

 

 

PROTON

Mass: 1.672 621 71(29) × 10−27 kg

938.272 029(80) MeV/c2

1.007 276 466 88(13) amu

Electric Charge: 1.602 176 53(14) × 10−19 C

Radius: about 0.8×10−15 m

Spin: ½

Quark

Composition: 1 down, 2 up .

 

NEUTRON

Mass: 1.674 927 29(28) × 10−27 kg

939.565 560(81) MeV/c²

1.008665 amu

Radius: about 0.8 × 10−15 m

Electric charge: 0 C

Spin: ½

Magnetic dipole moment: -1.91304273(45) μN

Quark composition: 2 Down, 1 Up

 

Electron:

Composition: Elementary particle

Family: Fermion

Group: Lepton

Generation: First

Interaction: Gravity, Electromagnetic, Weak

Antiparticle: Positron

Theorized: G. Johnstone Stoney (1874)

Discovered: J.J. Thomson (1897)

Symbol: e-, β-

Mass: 9.109 3826(16) × 10–31 kg[1]

~5.485 899 0945(24) × 10–4 u

~1⁄1822.888 4849(8) u

~0.510 998 918(44) MeV/c2

Electric charge: –1.602 176 53(14) × 10–19 C[2]

Spin: ½

 

Positron

Composition: Elementary particle

Family: Fermion

Group: Lepton

Generation: First

Interaction: Gravity, Electromagnetic, Weak

Antiparticle: Electron

Theorized: Paul Dirac, 1928

Discovered: Carl D. Anderson, 1932

Symbol: β+, e+

Mass: 9.1093826(16) × 10−31 kg[citation needed]

1⁄1836.15267261(85) amu[citation needed]

0.510998918(44) MeV/c2[1]

Electric charge: 1.602176462(63) × 10−19 C[citation needed]

Spin: ½

[Erasmus00]

First, the original paper, quantum aether dynamics appears to be a bunch of pseudo-scientific ramblings. There are no predictions, and seems to be no real theory.

 

Now, onward to all the FUNDAMENTAL (no sub-structure) particles. Each of these has an anti-particle

 

6 Quarks:

up, down, charm, strange, top,bottom.

 

Each of these has 3 possible colous. (red, green, blue)

 

Letons

electron,electron neutrino. Tau, tau neutrino, mu-on, mu neutrino.

 

In addition there are force carrying particles (bosons)

photon, W and Z bosons, and gluons.

-Will

[arkain101]

Thank you much apreciated.

[arkain101]

I am just working on displaying the model.

 

Working with some maths here, but its not my strong point.

 

 

Planck circumference

 

[math]Pc= 1.61624(12)x10^{-35} * (2\pi)[/math]

 

[math]Pc= 1.0155135x10^{-34}m[/math]

[arkain101]

This is a very basic idea of the concept.

 

The idea is that fundamental "particles" are string like structures that have positions on a sphere.

 

Their position determines their characteristics.

 

A position with 1/3 the circumference, rotates 1/3 the distance of the total circumference of the sphere, and thus is placed at a position 1/3 on the sphere.

 

A spin is how much of that sphere the charged entity is wrapped around. since most individual particles are 1/2 spin, they only wrap half of the sphere.

 

The sphere rotates up to velocity of C^2.

 

When the sphere is given angular momentum (ENERGY) depending on where the strip is located: As the sphere rotates faster; areas of the sphere send out energy when their angular rotation velocity is equal to C. The areas with a smaller diameter, must be spun much faster to reach C, however when they do reach C they have a much higher frequency of rotation, and emitt higher energy, because the overall sphere rotation velocity determines the energy of the structure as awhole. The mass is relative to how many strips of quarks are on the sphere.

 

Or it is completle vice versa:

 

This would mean the spin value is the position ratio of the total circumference, that is, 1/2 spin would be placed where it rotates 1/2 the distance for one revolution of the sphere in relation to its circumference.

 

And the charge would be the amount a trip wraps the sphere.

 

Something simlar to this fashion.

 

 

As such what one would do is consider each particle on the sphere able to create a frequency of warped space time, just like the total mass warps space-time for gravity.

 

This is visualised in 1D quite well. Each particle has a value of warped space it creates due to its orientation on the sphere.

 

It may be possible the sphere rotates at a constant 'C' and other organizations are taking place that operate energy emittion.

 

 

What happens when we break this down into planes is we have.

 

Plane 3, 3D Energy is in a sphere form in 3d space.

 

Plane 2, 2D Energy on point particle postion on space-time graph

 

plane 1, 1D Energy in open realm light waves.

 

 

plane 1-------plane 2-------plane 3

~~~~----------+------------O

 

 

See images below.

 

First Image. Position on sphere, shows ratio of circumference.

 

Second Image. Ratio of circumference by placing on sphere, closer or further form a pole.

 

3rd Image. Showing the function as a whole in its 3 planes of observation.

 

Note.. The 'object of mass' in the 3rd image should be visualised as "depressing the grid" or "denting spacetime'. In a different illustration one would show that the more the object dents the space the greater it lowers the 1D wave fronts, and as a result redshifts the light as it would be visualised moving along the 2d grid, not jumping to another grid. A large enough mass would lower the 1d light pulse so much that it would dissapear. A black hole may look to pull the 2d grid strait down like a singularity. Thus the 1d light pulse would not buldge above the 2d graph.

 

Each individual particles charge forces, are considered to perform this same indentation on the 2d graph. Except, Depending on the charge positions, it will alter the amount of charge dent, and relative to the frequencies involved for each plank circumference ratio.

[arkain101]

Consider each particle is a sphere that has a minimum volume.

 

On that sphere are ribbons placed in certain areas.

 

 

Where that ribbon is placed deterimines its behavior.

 

 

When the ball rotates with more energy it grows, but it always spins at the speed of light.

 

The trick is that you can take every single measureable part of that sphere and break it down in 3 dimensions of observation.

 

We view from the 1d realm, through the 2d window, AT the 3d material.

 

 

Each value of energy that represents an object dents the 2d window and this creates force. Gravity, nuclear force etc.

[arkain101]

My beleif is that the solution to string theory and the method of uniting quantum mechanics and general relativity is to conceive that how we view the universe is all the so called "dimensions" at the same time.

 

In my opinion as theororists conjur up more dimensions, they have not created more they have simply concieved how to single each one out.

 

As we focus in on ONE aspect of physics, such as gravity, (one of the dimensions/planes) we find what seems "strange" or other wordly because we have blocked out the rest of the system and put our attention onto one thing.

 

As we do this we see things that appear to behave very strange, but its the mixture of very strange things we see all at once that creates the calmness of our universe. Thus there is not more dimensions, there is simply ways to focus on each one, which looks like more.

 

Each plane can be displayed in the 3 dimensions, all at once or just just in two, or 1, 1D, 2D, 3D

 

Thus what we can do is form a general relativity expression for each force in the 2D window, A bend in the "space-time" created by the 3D operation quantum mechanical operation of matter.

 

String theory has slightly concieved this concept.

 

M theory is in the middle of the other known 5 sets of theories (planes) and there is also another 5 mirrored planes, they recently disovered this and dubbed it duality. This being anti matter and the like.

 

In my opinion, if we stop looking for more dimensions, and consider M theory is the viewer of all the detectable versions of theory.

 

If we accept we are in a multi plane world, that forms the 3D weird world, I beleive we will be able to concieve the solution much more clearly.

 

I tried to express this.

 

This is looking at One particle with our mind, showing only One duality plane. (this means mirrored duality, which we view as one, but is two)

 

We have the capability to display this plane in the observed 3 spacial dimensions.

 

Each spacial dimension (1d, 2d, 3d) can show a different way to concieve the function of things.

 

2D can show the dent in space-time displaying all forces. And the point particle position, the wave function, and the 2D representation of the 3D image.

 

1D can show a spike in the 2d plane (A 1d buldge coming from the source of the dent) of the value of electro magnetic energy that is coming from that source of a dent.

 

3D can show the object, its size, its position, its shape, and represent photons as particles.

 

 

We can express this for each thing independently. For mass, for charge, for strong and weak forces, for gravity, for EMR.

 

Over all, the three spacial dimensions display what energy looks like and acts like in each of those representations.

In 3D its volume etc.

In 2D its waves and dents.

In 1D its Value of energy states for each particle, and the last stage of transition of observation.

 

 

 

This here displays at best, an object, in the THREE forms of dimension we can represent it, and the fact that it must be mirrored parity, or duality.

 

 

Ps- The triangle only represents as is above so is below, and the formation of trinity, or the law (there must be 3 frames to have certainty observation). There should be 4 triangles, to form the twelve mirrored planes.

[arkain101]

I see that part of this concept is already in use, sphereical harmonics..

 

Spherical harmonics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[arkain101]

In relation to what quantum aether dynamics claims, I put together parities of phi spirals and matched up their origin points and it resembles electron orbitals quite well.

If you imagine the overal zones "inside out" they shape exactly the same.

 

 

[arkain101]

Notice how in the actual measured orbits those orbitals follow the concept I mentioned in this thread of how Oneness could create duality:

Copy,Mirror,Devide.

 

Step 1:

One whole entity, Oneness mirrored to eachother, Inside out.

 

Step 2:

Seperated Oneness, into mirrored duality. First atom and quantum state.

 

Then each orbital state follows that system, of mirror devide.

 

 

 

 

If our minds are as I theorise -On the inside of each swartzchild radius of each atom in our body (more specifically our nuron network), this would suggest we see the world of the Phi ratio formation from the inside out and as one world but mirrored to what the shapes are formed by that phi ratio.

 

When we delve into looking at the structure of these little oneness inside out phi ratio particles we see the representation of how oneness dualizes, and can only change in states of 1 (1+1-) 2(1+1-) 3(1+1-), etc.

 

The concept I've conjured up states that, our minds, (or our consciousness if you prefer), is on the inside of every sensory related atom connected to our body.

 

This does sound very much so 'out there' but there are mathmatical alignments.

 

Not only that but it is the only method I am able to concieve that will work, and that lets us visualise the complex universe in an understandable way.

[arkain101]

Topic: does the universe have to have an edge or is it limited to specific units.

 

Let us assume you can place yourself inside a singularity. (if you are not familiar with this concept, imagine yourself in a place with no time or space).

 

How is, a)space and :) time, confirmable? measurable? detecable? concievable?

 

To remove oneself from the singularity you must seperate that singularity without seperating it. You must devide it while keeping it whole.

 

The process to do this in our mind is to take the singularity, and apply a mirror inside it, and consider each image a real image. The mirroed image and the non mirroed image.

 

remove the mirror, and leave behind the two objects.

 

When these two objects unite, they become a seperate and unified singularity, that is, its own seperate from the universe, singular unit of space-time. We may call this light, made of both an (negatron) electron and an positron.

 

When the two objects seperate, they create the function of singularity into the observation of space and time. However these two objects are not seperate, and they must be whole, they must be entangled.

 

So you ask, does the universe have a limit?

 

We must consider that

 

1) there are worlds of units of singularity (light), that yet are a part of the same world that we can not observe

 

and

 

2)there are worlds of mirrored singularity limited to there very range of which they can push outwards, or "suck" singularity into what we call the observable universe.

 

Thus how big is the universe? It is as big as any set of mirrored singularity.

 

Is there an edge? No. The edge you think is there is never reachable, as you attempt to reach it, it changes with time, it changes position.

 

To observe light is to observe a collapse of unit of mirrored singularity, (photon), and of which creates a buldge of mirroed singularity in the atoms of the frame of observation, "sucking" or "filling" like a little ballon with mirrored singularity delivered by the photon.

 

 

The summerized answer: The universe is infinite by all means in relation to our restrictions of observing it, because it is only as big as the photon you observe it to be.

 

That is, as someone said, the start of it is the end of it, and the end of it is only the start of it.