God does not have any dice

[Little Bang]

In, “ THE COLOR OF MONEY “, as Paul Newman said, “ I’M BACK. “ Let's engage one more time In September of 1958 I paid almost seventy dollars for a Post Log Log VersaLog slide rule. It was at the time the most accurate portable calculator available. It was capable of predicting the answer, with pretty good accuracy, to most mathematical equations. It was a tool invented by humans, but even though it was a relatively accurate device, it could not explain the underlying mathematical concepts being used to set up the equations for it to solve. There have been thousands if not tens of thousands of brilliant scientists contributing to the development and successes of Quantum Mechanics. I for one, do not wish to detract in any way the efforts of those people. Science is a lot like being in an under ground maze of tunnels and each tunnel has a clue that suggests a possible explanation of some phenomena of the Universe. With that in mind we must at least entertain the possibility that we have misinterpreted a clue and taken a tunnel that does not lead to a final solution. QM is a tool much like the slide rule. It gives solutions based on probability and those solutions are very accurate. QM’s Standard Model has one main premise, that all forces in the universe are mediated by some particle. In the 50’s and 60’s a zoo of anomalies occurred in particle accelerators that science decided to call particles and thus the Standard model was born. The following hypothesis is diametrically opposed to the Standard Model and suggests that there are no particles in the universe except the proton and electron which are a continuous wave where each can exhibit both a positive and negative charge. They are their own anti-particle. I, for one, think that Dr. Einstein was right when he wrote, “ He (God ) does not through dice.”. Albert Einstein , in my opinion, was the most prolific, out side the box thinker of human history. He thought the universe should be simple enough that any normal person could understand it’s explanation. At a time, when the vast majority of the scientific community thought they were within a cat’s whisker of explaining the universe, he dropped a bomb shell that shook their world to it’s foundations. The route that he took to his final equation was long and complicated. Few scientists of the time could understand it and claimed that his theory could not possibly be right. His special theory of relativity and it’s elegant beauty lead to the famous E = MC^2 which we must agree is simple enough for practically anyone to understand. Here I would like to give my definition of the word observer. It can be a person, a rock, a planet, a star or a particle. In fact any object or group of objects can be considered an observer with a frame of reference. This entire theory is built on the uncanny leap of logic accomplished by Dr. Einstein and a possible vindication for his own belief that the Copenhagen Convention was a potential disaster for physics, Any theory that proposes to explain everything must explain the basic phenomena of the universe, gravity and inertia, the charge of the electron and proton, mass and the relativity of mass gain as a particle is accelerated. Almost all the people in the scientific community will respond to this question, “ Why does the clock of a particle traveling near C appear to be almost stopped? “ Their answer is always ,“Because the particle is traveling near C with respect to the observer.”. That answer is not entirely true. Every particle in the universe carries it’s own clock and that clock is a wave whose wavelength can be shortened by acceleration with respect to an observer. My move to look at the wave structure of matter was in part precipitated by the failure of the standard model to explain these phenomena and the discovery of an experiment performed in 1999 at the Stanford linear accelerator. The article describing the experiment can be found here, (Physical Review D Vol.60, 092004 in 1999). The experiment set up a collision between two beams of radiation. One was a gamma ray beam of ~10^25 Hertz and the other was the green laser at 6.0 X 10^14 Hertz. According to the spokesman for the group, four of the green laser photons were converted into an electron and an anti-electron. This was an astounding revelation that radiation can be turned into matter. This got me to wondering about virtual particle pairs that randomly pop into and out of existence leaving only the gamma radiation of annihilation behind as evidence that they were here. Then I saw a TV documentary about giant rogue waves that randomly occur in the oceans and realized that a similar process may create virtual particle pairs from random, cumulative waves that fill all of space. For those of you unfamiliar with the Stern-Gerlack experiment you can find it here (The Stern-Gerlach Experiment). That explanation says that an electron will move towards the south pole or north pole of the horse shoe magnet depending on their direction of spin. I’m going to propose an alternate explanation, one that will allow the electron or proton to exhibit both a positive or negative charge depending on the position of the observer. Remember, the device that splits the beam is an observer. MASS AND CHARGE Figure 1 below depicts my proposed geometric wave shape of the proton and the electron. This figure is just an analogy because I’m not smart enough to see exactly how it looks. Since the polarity of the electron and proton is a matter of convention I am suggesting that charge is determined by the direction of the wave flow with respect to the observer. I choose to call the counter clockwise rotation a negative charge. Viewed from behind (figure 1) it would appear as a positive charge to the observer. This would explain how a particle with mass could have both a positive and negative charge as in Stern-Gerlack. The circumference of the torus and also it’s mass is dependent upon it’s wave length, lambda = C/f and f = MC^2/h where M is the mass of the proton or the mass of the electron. Attachment 2605 Fig. 1 Calculating the appropriate wave length of the proton and electron For those who don’t know, the equation f=MC^2/h is derived from, fh = E = MC^2 Electron f = MC^2/h where M is the mass of the electron, h is Planck’s constant f = (9.109 X 10^-31 Kg)(3 X 10^8 m/sec)^2/6.626 X 10^-34 J f = 12.37 X 10^19 Hz Lambda = C/f Lambda = 3 X 10^8 m/sec/12.37 X 10^19Hz Lambda = 2.42 X 10^-12 m Proton f = MC^2/h where M is the mass of the proton, h is Planck’s constant f = (1.673 X 10^-27 Kg)(3 X 10^8m/sec)^2/6.626 X 10^-34 J f = 2.27 X 10^23 Hz Lambda = 3 X 10^8 m/sec/2.27 X 10^23 Hz Lambda = 1.32 X 10^-15 m It should be noted here that QM calls the electron a point particle (lacks spatial extension, being zero-dimensional) which eliminates any requirement for showing a relationship between the mass of the proton and electron. Since the proton is 1836 times as massive as the electron then one should be able to multiple the wave length of the proton by that number to get the wave length of the electron. 1836 X proton’s lambda = (1.836 X 10^3)(1.32 X 10^-15 m) = 2.42 X 10^-12 m, electron’s lambda This should strongly suggest that the mass of a particle is the result of it’s wave length. One should ask the question, “ If the proton is a torus, how do you turn it into a neutron? “,. When the pressure and temperature is high enough, it will collapse into a figure eight. This gives the neutron a positive charge on one end and a negative charge on the other making the neutron, as it’s name suggests, neutral. This allows a way to connect protons and neutrons and build all the elements without the strong force. THE RELATIVITY OF MATTER INERTIA Every cubic centimeter of the universe is filled with electromagnetic waves. I don’t think anyone will argue with the fact that there is no place in the universe one can go and not detect electromagnetic radiation(EMR). There are regions of space where EMR is far less dense than in other regions. An example would be the space between galaxies has less EMR than the space inside galaxies. The space around our sun has a much higher density of EMR than space around the Earth. Suffice it to say that any matter above absolute zero generates EMR. Plato’s Timaeus called this the quintessence, of which the cosmos and all celestial bodies are made. As it turns out he was right. From here on I will refer to this EMR medium of the fabled Aether as Ether . We know that it requires energy to accelerate a particle, F = Ma. Why? Something about space sets that requirement. Is there a possibility that Newton’s F = Ma does not apply equally throughout the universe? One could argue that if there is zero resistance to acceleration then any application of force to a particle should produce infinite acceleration but that is not the case. Mass has an unexplained phenomena called inertia.. The task then is to find a reasonable explanation for that resistance to acceleration. The proposed geometric shape in Fig. 1 above can be either an electron or proton. The only difference in the two would be their radius, which is determined by the circumference, which is determined by the wave length that created it. I will use the electron as our subject particle. Electromagnetic waves have both an electric and magnetic component. Our electron has an electric field. If we apply a force it will resist any acceleration through the magnetic component of light (of which the ether is composed). This resistance to acceleration shortens the wave length of the electron which, according to the calculations above, will be viewed by an observer as mass gain. This conclusion means that a particle accelerated to a specific velocity in intergalactic space will require more energy to achieve the same velocity at the surface of the sun or Earth. GRAVITY From the explanation of inertia above any particle or group of particles accelerated through the Ether will gain mass. The closer you move toward matter ( the Earth ) the denser the Ether becomes. Suppose we had a frictionless tube, one meter long, whose inside diameter is just large enough to allow a diatomic hydrogen molecule to move freely up and down in the tube. We fill the tube with diatomic hydrogen at STP and stand the tube up perpendicular to the surface of the Earth. Each molecule is moving up and down in the tube colliding with the molecule above and below. Let’s observe the path of a particular molecule which we call (;). The molecule above we call (A) and the one below we call ( C ). We start watching ( as it moves down the tube toward ( C ). When it collides with ( C ) it starts moving up the tube through a reducing density of the Ether, losing relative mass. When it collides with (A) it starts back down the tube through an increasing density of the Ether, gaining relative mass. Momentum down - momentum up points toward the center of the Earth. CONCLUSION The theory explains the asymmetry of the universe because matter is a wave. It explains mass and charge, gravity and inertia and links the micro universe to relativity The universe is not random, it only seems random because of the googolplex of micro events required to create an observable macro event. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the corner stone of quantum mechanics, may not be valid if there is no duality. The universe is predictable just as Albert said. Electron energy level changes can be shown as relative mass gain or loss, but I will leave that to people younger and smarter than I. This theory will require clarification on many points in physics but I think that the truth lies somewhere within the ideas concept.

electron.pdf

[Pyrotex]

Little Bang,

sorry dude, but I recommend you take to heart to a few suggestions:

 

1. Your post is too long. I didn't read it all and nobody else will either. Try to keep your posts to about one screen's worth. You don't have to say everything in one post.

2. Don't make it so "painful" for your audience to read you. Your post has no paragraph breaks. This is really a courtesy you should show to your readers if you really want them to give you responses.

3. Be careful not to quote long passages out of books or someone's blog. Now, I'm sure you didn't do that, but there are folks around here who might get suspicious at such a long post, and do a Google search for the first half-dozen sentences.

 

So, try again, and good luck. ;)

[Qfwfq]

Some SOB quoted your entire post over in the Bad Astronomy site!

What amazes me is that he did it at a velocity greater than c, judging by the timestamps! :D