Simple Theory

[FreelanceScientists]

Your theories are good. It's just that they are wrong, but for the same reason Einstein's were wrong. Your math and stuff is good. It's just that mass was left really undefined. And light never moves. It dissipates along the quantum connections or something. Even when you do your math real good as it looks like you have done, it will still come out wrong because some of the unit specifications are wrong. You could start all over again working up from the very basic foundations of physics and it might come out right.

[devin553344]

Your theories are good. It's just that they are wrong, but for the same reason Einstein's were wrong. Your math and stuff is good. It's just that mass was left really undefined. And light never moves. It dissipates along the quantum connections or something. Even when you do your math real good as it looks like you have done, it will still come out wrong because some of the unit specifications are wrong. You could start all over again working up from the very basic foundations of physics and it might come out right.

 

Thanks. I'm considering some re-write as I consider units. I like the similarities in the solid angles, but I'm concerned they mean something else. At which point I can re-write with proper units.

Edited August 28, 2019 by devin553344

[devin553344]

The gravitational portion of the theory must be re-written to have a magnitude from a baseline value:

 

a = 4πGh/c^2

 

4πGVe/c^2 = a * 8/15 * π^2 * exp(5*6π)

 

4πG2me = a * 8/15 * π^2 * exp(5*3π)

 

4πG2mp = 6 * a * 8/15 * π^2 *π^5 *exp(5*3π)

 

Where a is the baseline acceleration field, G is the gravitational constant, h is the reduced Planck constant, e is the elementary charge, c is the speed of light, V is the voltage of space-time as I've previously described, me is the mass of the electron and mp is the mass of the proton.

 

The exponents here are similar to a hyperbolic cosine and represent ratios.

Edited September 1, 2019 by devin553344

[devin553344]

One can possibly unify electric and gravitation via the voltage of space which I've already defined. But there is another unification potential. I will supply that here. One can treat matter and charge as a distance. First we convert matter and charge to distance which relates to the distance of length contraction of a gravitational field:

 

meters/kilogram = 4πG/c^2

 

meters/Coulomb = (4πGK/c^4)^1/2

 

Where G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, K is the electric constant. Now I will use "d" as the distance of a mass or a charge:

 

N = c^4/(4πG)

 

Kq1q2 = Nd1d2 = m1c^2d2

 

Where N is the unified force constant, K is the electric constant, q1 and q2 are electric charges, d1 is the first charges distance, and d2 is another charge distance, m1 is the mass equivalent of d1.

 

4πGm1m2 = Nd1d2 = m1c^2d2

 

To unify the force constant and relate it to Planck's constant we must calculate the distance space is bent per energy of Planck's constant:

 

rh = 4πGh/c^4

 

N = h/rh

 

Where rh is the amount space bends per unit of energy, h is the reduced Planck constant in units of Joules (the energy of a single quantum).

 

Therefore the acceleration field of a distance space is bent becomes:

 

4πGm = c^2 * d = meters cubed / seconds squared

 

Where m is a mass and d is the distance that mass is bending space.

 

That way mass and charge might both be described as acceleration fields of units meters cubed divided by seconds squared.

Edited September 14, 2019 by devin553344

[devin553344]

Devin have you heard of quantum field theory. https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-are-quantum-fields-real-b670cc8462d0 This is a very interesting quick to read link. There is a line of thought that different types of field have different properties, for instance a photon field has no magnetic properties but has inertia, an electron field has mass, charge, spin, magnetic poles etc The fields are a part of the whole of the particle being considered and not separate from it. 

 

Thanks Flummoxed, I checked it out, great article on quantum fields. Yet I don't believe in a complex universe.  I don't believe space-time is complex or the charges that exist within it. Which is why I'm proposing that mass and charge are opposite acceleration fields as described by Einstein with a slight variation.

 

I also don't buy the idea of particle exchange physics for forces like the Yukawa potential.

 

I do understand that those ideas are currently interesting physicists though :)

 

I'm more of the thought process that nothing exists in the universe except distance and time, and compressions/expansions of them. Therefore particles and charges must be distance and/or time.

Edited September 14, 2019 by devin553344

[devin553344]

I'm not sure I agree with the unstable particle definition. But I will attempt to describe some of them below...

 

I worked out the Charged and Neutral Pion, Muon and Tau (for these values to be more precise you must add the strong force energy and subtract the electric just as the electron and proton mentioned previously):

 

Charged Pion (decays into Muon):

 

mc^2 = 1/2 * h * 8/15 * π^2 * T^5 *exp(5*3π)

 

Where T = π * cos(π/16),  m is the mass of the charged Pion, c is the speed of light, h is the reduced Planck constant.

 

Neutral Pion:

 

mc^2 = 1/2 * h * 8/15 * π^2 * T^5 *exp(5*3π) (1 - 4πa)^1/2

 

Where a is the fine structure constant.

 

Muon:

 

mc^2 = 1/2 * h * 8/15 * π^2 * T^5 *exp(5*3π)

 

Where T = π * cos(π/8).

 

Tau Particle:

 

mc^2 = h * 8/15 * π^2 * T^5 *exp(5*3π)

 

Where T = 2π * cos(π/4).

 

W Boson:

 

mc^2 = 6 * h * 8/15 * π^2 * T^5 *exp(5*3π)

 

Where T = 3π * cos(π/4).

 

Z Boson:

 

mc^2 = 4 * h * 8/15 * π^2 * T^5 *exp(5*3π) (4πa)^1/2

 

Where T = 3π

 

Higgs Boson (the matter field particle):

 

mc^2 = 1/2 * h * 8/15 * π^2 * T^5 *exp(5*3π) 1/(4πa)^1/2

 

Where T = 3π

 

The equation for particles would be:

 

mc^2 = N/2 * h * 8/15 * π^2 * T^5 *exp(5*3π) * g

 

Where m is the mass of the particle, c is the speed of light, N is the number of sub particles that makes up the particle, h is the reduced Planck constant, T is the pseudo radius delta, g is the fine structure gauge coupling constant (if applicable).

Edited October 5, 2019 by devin553344

[devin553344]

Unification of charge and mass:

 

If mass and charge are both acceleration fields of units:

 

m ~ q = meters cubed / seconds squared

 

Where m is the mass and q is the charge.

 

Then (as already suggested):

 

(4πG)^1/2 = (Ke^2)/(252hc)

 

Where G is the gravitational constant, K is the electric constant, e is the elementary charge, h is the reduced Planck constant, c is the speed of light.

 

Voltage = (1/2 * mv^2)/q = 1/2 * v^2

 

Where v is a velocity.

 

Then permittivity of free space is dimensionless and the gravitational constant is dimensionless, and permeability is 1/(velocity squared):

 

V = ((c^4 * K)/(4πG))^1/2

 

2V = v^2 = cos^4(22.5 degrees) * c^4 * u/(4π)

 

Where V is the voltage of free space, u is the permeability of free space.

 

This concept is important to the theory since:

 

mc^2 = Vq

 

Where V is the voltage of space-time as expressed earlier in this thread and represents velocity squared.

 

And solving out voltage solves the electric constant:

 

(4πE)^1/2 = (Ke^2)/(252hc) * cos^4(22.5 degrees)/2

 

Where E is the permittivity of free space.

Edited October 5, 2019 by devin553344