[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

Errata, spin, gravitational wave and nuclear force


ERRATA:

The electron classical magnetic moment (or Bohr magneton μB) is given by

μB = I * S

Where I is the current and S the surface inside the circular current

μB = [(e * C)/2πR] * πR^2 = e * C * R/2 = e * h /(4π*me)

Where e is the electric charge
R is the rotating charge radius and is given by

R = h/(2π * me * C)

Dirac's equations involve a small relativistic correction

μe = -1.0016 * μB

Thus, we have to conclude that the charge is not in the middle of the electron but rotating at a radius R.

It implies that the charges always move at the speed of light and never stop.  But the charge has an acceleration toward the center of the particle and it does not emit Bremsstrahlung radiation. The electric charge does not change at relative speed. I still think, the charge is an interaction from a fifth dimension and its acceleration produces a gravitational wave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_magneton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung


Proton and neutron sizes

Protons and neutrons are made of 3 quarks which are necessarily lighter than protons and neutrons. The protons and neutrons sizes cannot be determine solely by their masses. The size of each quarks (if quarks are elementary particles) should be about 3 times larger than the equivalent proton or neutron sizes (calculated as an elementary particle). The true masses of quarks has never been measured and appear smaller because of their Strong binding energy. The experimentally measured sizes of particles are their electric charges rotation sizes...


Spin and gravitational wave

G*Mp^2/C = Mp*C*Lp = e^2/(α*C*4πξ0) = h/2π

Earlier, i said that the spin of an elementary particle is given by

m*C*R = h/2π

We know that the spin is a multiple integer of h/4π (or 1/2). What is wrong? I was implying that the gravitational wave has the same radius as the rotating charge and all the particle's energy mc^2 is kinetic energy. I was wrong, the gravitational wave has either,

1- half the rotational radius of the charge (the spin would be equal to 1 when the charge is in the middle of the gravitational wave and they both have the same radius only).

or

2- half the total energy mc^2 is in the kinetic spin and the other half is potential binding gravitational energy (the energy needed to generate its intrinsic spacetime).

I will go further by saying that the gravitational wave is generating spacetime and even further, the Strong Interaction is, at least, mainly, if not completely, gravitational in nature. It is not magnetic as i thought (though magnetism has certainly a relation to gravity: it is a relativistic effect).


Nuclear Force

The term G*Mp^2 seems to be the Strong Interaction

G*Mp^2 = 137 * e^2/(4πξ0)

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html

Here is a simple model for the purpose of understanding, only:

Two particles with a very small difference in sizes are concentric, the smaller one is in the middle of the larger particle.
Virtual particles (pi mesons?) are constantly exchanged between both particles so that their difference in radius becomes effectively 2*Lp

The gravitational attraction becomes

Fg = G*M1*M2/(2Lp)^2 = G*Mp^2/(R1+R2)^2 = 137 * e^2/(4πξ0*(R1+R2)^2)

You can verify it, it is correct.

The binding energy is given by

GMp^2/(R1+R2)

For the Nuclear Force between protons and neutrons, you can see their binding energy in the following graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Binding_energy_curve_-_common_isotopes.svg

For a concentric model of one neutron concentric to a proton (just for the purpose of understanding) the binding energy calculated is about 470 MeV... Proton and neutron energy MC^2 is about 940 MeV, which is twice the calculated binding...

N.B.: virtual particles are necessary for the standard model of the Strong and Nuclear forces too. Their cause is probably in part electromagnetic and they certainly need very specific reasons to appear. I don't really believe in spontaneous virtual particles, but i can't be sure of that. It looks like a quantum pervertion...

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

Here is a quote from Einstein:

"This objection would be justified if the equations of gravitation were to be considered as equations of the total field. But since this is not the case, one will have to say that the field of a material particle will differ the more from a pure gravitational field the closer one comes to the location of the particle. If one had the field equations of the total field, one would be compelled to demand that the particles themselves could be represented as solutions of the complete field equations that are free of irregularities everywhere. Only then would the general theory of relativity be a complete theory."

From http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-08/6-08.htm
 

[kornbredrsqar]

WOW, there is a lot of info in this forum, and most of which is above my pay grade, but what I do comprehend of it seems to fit in with an idea I have on this subject that was posted earlier,
and after watching a short explanation of string theory it to had properties that fit in as well. If photons are dark matter then the energy they possess is dark energy, and light is waves that travel through them and each photon might be connected electromagnetically in a multidimensional gridlike structure that somehow permeates all other matter and at the same time makes up that matter. I also wounder if the fact that light waves of different wavelengths are more easily refracted then others could be why the farther away an object is the redder it appears to be. has there been any calculations or studies to disprove this idea?. To me this makes more sense than the phase shift theory, but then that would cause an uproar in the big bang comunity wouldn't it. From what I learned the whole expanding universe theory hinges on this one single peace of evidence, to me it is like hanging a 500 pound panting on a thumb tack and expecting it to hold up. Has anyone ever observed a faze shift of light on earth as an object passes by, like for instance a light on an SR-71, as this plane is capable of very high speeds, it seems like a likely candidate for recording an actual change in light frequency as it passes the point of observation.

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

Dark Matter:

The studies of gravitational lensing produced by Dark Matter showed that it is localized and it does not propagate at the speed of light. It does not seem to interact with the electromagnetic field but only with gravity and maybe the weak force. It sounds pretty much like particles to me... But what is bothering me about this is that we should see the effect of it in our solar system, unless there is not much around here.

It could be heavy virtual particles forming by the interactions of very high energy photons. Their decay could feed the creation of other virtual particles and this process could continue for a while without being fed by an external agent. According to my theory, Dark Matter particles of a fixed mass energy should be easier to produce than ordinary particles because they would be made of opposite charges. The problem with the virtual particles is the quantity needed and maybe no mass produced at all... Maybe they are not so virtual... Is it possible that they have been created at the BigBang and their generating process has been sustained for so long? Instability would explain why there is not much around the solar system, due to the sun's radiation. But they could be more stable between stars, in deep space, and produced by the interactions of stars photonic radiation.

For the redshift, the classical redshift by moving light sources or particles has been proved a long time ago and the distance has no consequence.

About Dark Energy, I see 3 general possibilities:

1- It is the negative pressure of true vacuum. Spacetime has been released from confinement in this vacuum at the BigBang.

2- Dark energy is simply gravity from matter outside what we can see of the Universe. A possibility we should consider if Dark flows are real. Maybe Dark Matter?

3- It is a new Force. All attempts at a measurement of it has been unsuccessful until now. The solution does not seem to be here. But who knows?

4- The cosmological model on which dark energy is founded is wrong...

[kornbredrsqar]

I guess gravity is a better explanation of the forces having to due with photons rather than electromagnetic, bad choice of words I suppose,but it still seems to me that an individual photon being emitted from a source and traveling the enormous distances that they do is not logical, the immense number of them that would be required to emit light in all directions from a star for the millions of years that a star lasts does not seem possible to me, and if this is possible then there should be a measurable transfer of mass from the source to the observer or whatever serfice that is absorbing the light. This is the main reason for my theory that individual photons only moving a short distance and transferring there energy from one to the next much like sound waves that travel through air.   

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

Some people on the forum, including me, have already thought about the fifth dimension as being a grid of electric charges (having a radius of the Planck Length) in the 3D space. It sounds a little reductionist but it is not impossible. []

Here is a very good summary of classical attempts at a Unification Theory. The most interesting part for my theory is the one about Klein's theory (unification of gravity and Maxwell's equations, see section 6.3):

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2004-2

Here is an article about the concentric rings in the Cosmic Background Radiation (R. Penrose and V.G. Gurzadyan):

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3706.pdf

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

Euclidean Space and Relativity

In my opinion, we are in an Euclidean space, but as we are made of light (all matter and energy), we cannot perceive a speed higher than the speed of light. So the Newtonian Doppler shift of the frequency becomes relativistic... Timerate really slows down with acceleration and increase of gravity. The length perception contracts because of the variation of timerate and frequency. There is no black holes but there is black rings. I would bet anything on it... Mass, gravity and time are strongly related.

Spacetime is real for us, but there is a true Euclidean space. The limit of spacetime is the Planck length because gravity is caused by the electric charge having a radius of the Planck length. A charge can produce a maximum mass of Mp (the Planck mass). Beyond the Planck length, space appears Euclidean again... This is it, i nailed it...

A particle having a mass of Mp is a charge spinning on itself, it does not rotate anymore, so there is no relativity anymore...

(the charges of quarks are not 1/3 (+/-) and 2/3 (+/-) but -1 or +1, they just appear to be like this: I have a working model of the proton and the neutron, i found the muon in it, with  pions, size, confinement, magnetic moment, beta decay; the Strong force looks like a unification of electromagnetism and gravity).

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

Here is a graph of the Relativistic (black) vs newtonian (red) doppler shifts.

The y axis is f_observer/f_emitter.

The x axis is relative v/c of the emitter to the observer, a positive v is toward the observer.

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

Relative timerate is directly related to the rotation period of the charge around an elementary particle. This period is relative to each particle. The apparent timerate is real and it is regulated by entanglement between all photons of the universe... This may seems farfetched but it is not...

In their own frame of reference, each type of elementary particles has the same timerate. What can regulate time? Only something with no timerate: Entanglement.

See page 4 for my entanglement explanation.

Recent experimentation: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46193

Wave pilot theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

                   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

I don't find the arrow uncertain, I find it a constant, inside your own frame. The idea of conceptually defining time when comparing frames is, conceptual. The real truth is that your arrow of time never change.

And furthermore, we're all carrying our personal SpaceTime with us. Which makes it incredibly difficult to define where a 'frame of reference' starts and ends. If I expect every 'point' to be slightly different gravitationally, and then include relative motion/acceleration I now have two good reasons for that definition. So where do you think your 'frame of reference' is situated? The one I, and you too actually, expect you to have? and how do we join them?

I don't need to define a 'time dilation' to any specific 'locality', can you see what I mean? It's a relation, nothing more.
==

How about accelerations? They are all defined by one thing as I see it, or two actually.
They all have 'gravity', and they all expend 'energy'.

The arrow of time is a constant in its own frame, i agree. But what makes, for example, all electrons, with no relative movement to each other, having the same unrelativistic properties. And what about the differentiation of acceleration and deceleration like in the twins experiment, which must be true differentiation in terms of information...

You could say that it comes from a reference point, a singularity, the usual bigbang. I just don't believe in that, if you unconditioned yourself to this point of view, you will find that it is highly improbable. You should look at its history and how it came to be and think about other possibilities.

In my understanding of entanglement, it conveys instantly informations about the spins between two entangled particles. The timerate information is in the spin according to my theory, it is the rotation period of the electric charge or frequency, if you prefer (in my model, it is two halves of an electric charge).

Thanks Yor_on, it is a golden question that i needed!

[yor_on]

Ahh CPT, now you're discussing two, or, maybe more things

We have matter as your chair. Then we have its constituents, which are the 'particles'. The particles seems to be both loosely defined as well as being able to 'pinpoint' depending on your view. For an electron that can express itself under certain circumstances, as the same electron apparently is able to exist in two orbitals, simultaneously. That's not what we expect of our chairs.

Then there is the definition of a charge.

Do you define a charge to a photon? If you do you better know that there have been no experiments I know of defining such a thing. The only idea existing, as far as I know, is the theoretical definitions of its limits, if it would exist.

And yes, you can see a entanglement the way you do, as a form of 'information' but information imply a communication, and all 'useful' communications known takes time. The other variant is to define it as those two particles in a way is the exact same. Just like the idea of a wave plastered out through SpaceTime. Some call them 'clones', but the principle defines as you say something 'instant'.

"The apparent timerate is real and it is regulated by entanglement between all photons of the universe"

I've been wondering about that one too, if all photons to some degree could be defined as entangled. Although you lose me when defining the 'timerate' as regulated? We're talking entanglements I presume, and then you can not have any 'useful' information.

How do you think there?
==

Another thing worth thinking of. In a entanglement the particle(s) defined always will have a opposite 'spin'. If they are the 'same', why does this differ?

A symmetry?

Keep it on CPT. All ideas change with reflection, but the longer you think of it the simpler it should be. If you find yourself going the other way, finding it to becoming increasingly complicated, then it's time to draw back to test the assumptions.

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

There can be 2 electrons with opposite spins on the same orbital, they are not on top of each other, they just orbit on opposite sides of the nucleus.

Far from an electron, it is perceived as a point particle, but its gravitational and electromagnetic fields comes from a ring shape. The charge appears smeared around its rotation, because it has a velocity of c in its own frame. I see a particle as being a strong entanglement of halves of photons. With MRC = h/2π and E=hν, it forms the uncertainty principle.

In the same way, a photon is made of two halves of a charge (to account for a possibility of dark matter made of +1/2 -1/2) of +1/2 and -1/2. The charge is smeared and it produces an effective charge of zero.

All energy of the universe is made of one wave of light in an Euclidean 3d space. Particles and photons are the strong entanglement relations and entanglement between particles and photons is the weak one. A part of the weak entanglement regulates time (and gravity) by relativity. You can see it like a coil spring between two entangled particles, but you must replace space dimension x by the velocity v component dx/dt (Δx -> Δv). Vectors of acceleration and gravity corresponding to true inertial force between two particles are stored in the entanglement.

Some information travels at the speed of light, some are instantaneous but are limited between the two entangled particles.

According to what i have read, some researchers are trying to experiment with multiple levels of entanglement, they want to reach a higher than 50% certainty on the switch of the spin. An up spin changes by 90 to 270 degrees, making it a down spin with 50% of uncertainty...

An excellent explanation of some properties of the spin that gives a good idea of how it works:
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SternGerlach/SternGerlach.html


About Relativity and Minkowski spacetime:
According to Einstein Theory of Relativity, our four main dimensions should be indivisible spacetime. Simultaneity is relative to the observer and there is no possible true simultaneous related events, because nothing can have a velocity greater than the speed of light. In this model, relativity is explained by the properties of spacetime itself. The problem is that it does not allow simultaneity and non locality. This is why Einstein disliked so much the idea of entanglement.

http://www.classicalmatter.org/ClassicalTheory/OtherRelativity.doc

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

Evidence of a ring black hole...?


http://journalofcosmology.com/SchildLeiter1.pdf

If you look at figure 7 page 39, the yellow dotted lines look much like the gravity equipotentials of my ring black hole. The black ring is somewhere between the center and the white color ring.

The size of the ring seems to agree with their conclusion, Rg is about half the Schwarzschild radius (see page 4 of my theory for my description of a black ring).

About MECO: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0602/0602453v1.pdf

Here is dipole measurements in the CMB radiation map (courtesy of yor_on :
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html

Anomalies in the spin of galaxies:
http://128.84.158.119/abs/1104.2815

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

It is now clear for me, that there is no true Spacetime as Einstein conceptualized it. There is only one giant wave of light (or many) in a Euclidean space (Phractality was right about Euclidean space).

The laws of Entanglement and the laws of General and Special Relativity come from properties of the lightwave as a whole, "propagating" through 3D space.

Spacetime is only apparent, there is no true curvature of spacetime, but there is curvature of light in space. The lower limit of apparent Spacetime is the rest mass and the higher limit is the Planck mass. The ultimate proof lays on the present and future observations of black holes.

http://www.calphysics.org/inertia.html (another gem discovered on the net by Yor_on)
The most interesting paragraph is "Objections", a must read!!!

A little secret:
The strong force is what maintain the two half charges in an elementary particle. The two half charges are the virtual particles needed (they are inside h/2π) and they are bound by GMp^2/(2R)^2, energy = MC^2 = MC^2/2 + GMp^2/2R (kinetic + Strong potential) where MCR = h/2π. Remember, the charge has no mass, no inertia, but it creates it by rotating. All dimensions except space dimensions expand from the charges...

Why photons have no timerate and no apparent charge:
Photons can be viewed as a dipole of one -1/2 and one +1/2 charges, rotating at the speed of light and propagating at the speed of light. In analogy to a wheel, the distance it covers in a one rotation period is equal to its circumference without any shearing (in a particle's rest frame). Thus, you can replace the time dimension by a fourth space dimension for photons. For an elementary particle having a mass, there is a shearing of the wheel and you need something linking mass and space: this is Time... Here ends the analogy of a shearing wheel because it is not shearing in any medium other than its own, it is just rotating at the speed of light in its rest frame, which is not the case for a photon (no rest frame). And you can't measure the charges of something propagating with no timerate...

Viewed in this way, there is only a small difference between photons and neutrinos...

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

In very short, the HUP (uncertainty principle) is caused by:

A- Entanglement between all elementary particles of the universe (1st level=50%, 2nd=25%, 3rd=12.5%, ...); There is a 0 level or ground state of entanglement for the particle itself but it is a special case for later.
 +
B- the electric charge is equally the mass charge, it always propagates at the speed of light;
 +
C- an elementary particles possess an angular momentum of h/2π and a spin of 1/2.

The whole universe is totally causal excepted, probably, living entities, naturally... This would be the cause of evolution, or rather i should say: this is a process that enables evolution...

Elementary particle
An elementary particle (EP) with mass has a spin of 1/2, it has an annihilating antiparticle with perfect geometrical symmetry (circular and spherical for EP) and opposite electric charge (not mass, same mass). The photon is the ultimate elementary particle, but i don't use the term elementary particle for it anymore.

The charge always propagating at the speed of light solves so many problems that it may be the best solution. No experiment deny it, in the contrary, it is the best bet, it is simply an ultra basic property, even more than relativity. In my model, you have space and charges, that's all! All dimensions but Euclidean space are in the charge... The wave of energy is an expansion of some of the charge's dimensions. (note: fractal and superfluid links)

There is many circumstantial proofs that the charge rotates at the speed of light.

My first assumption is that everything is made of light and particles are made out of photons. The end of all decays is the photon. My second assumption is that there is a deterministic model underlying the probabilistic interpretation of QM, at least for the dimensions of the purely "material" world.

The magnetic moment of the electron using the compton wavelength indicates a rotation size in agreement with many experiments. Meaning the charge has a speed of C.

The Compton wavelength is used in the QM wave models of massive particles.

The spin has fixed values that represent an inertial angular momentum with a probability distribution for its direction. If you look at it in a relativistic point of view, what can possibly produce a fixed (quantized) inertial angular momentum? Something propagating at the speed of light with no mass, no inertia (superfluid?)... The charge...

Gravity is like an only attractive DC component of the electromagnetic field. AC and DC unified form the Strong Force, which is not a field but the binding of subatomic particles. It is a conclusion, not an assumption... (you can still see it as a one dimensional circular field!)

I have made an extensive research on the net.
If you look only at the basic verified properties of particles, discarding the purely theoretical, and you forget the artificial separations of the standard model due to the lack of knowledge about the Strong Force, you find that the elementary massive particles are all a rotating charge with a spin of 1/2. Electron, muon, Tau, quarks and neutrinos. Bosons are a special case because my theory denies the Higgs. Of what i understand, if there is no Higgs, the actual models of W and Z bosons are not correct.

N.B.: for neutrinos, we must differentiate the inertial spin from the electromagnetic spin due to its neutral electric charge...

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

A good news : "Was the universe born spinning?"

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

another one? : No time travel possible?

http://www.inquisitr.com/129162/hong-kong-research-proves-time-travel-impossible/

Even if i did not say it explicitly, mass and time is the circular motion of the charges, so implicitly, there is no negative time and no negative mass, not as far as my theory goes...

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

no negative mass?

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2011/07/28/antiproton-mass-measured-with-unprecedented-precision/

[imatfaal]

CPT - dunno if you can read the actual nature article; but the techniques involved in the measurement are stunning.  I presume this is just inertial mass and no necessarily gravitational mass that has been measured.  Personally I think the chances of a variation between gravitational and inertial mass - even for antimatter - are very slight (ie reulsive gravity between matter and antimatter).  I would be fairly happy if I was you and your theory predicts no negtive mass

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

I understand that they have measured the mass-energy of the antiproton. It is true that it is not an absolute proof of positive gravitational mass but it is nonetheless a good circumstantial proof of it.

I am amazed to find so many great experimenters in Physics...


About Dark Matter, now i tend to think it could be simply stopped neutrinos between stars. Supernovae produce mostly neutrinos!!! What if there is no true expansion of space, spacetime expansion could be included in the kinetic expansion, no faster than light. How old is the Universe then? The major problem is that time is relative...  How can there be so much energy in neutrinos form? They are produced by supernovae, stars and probably matter near black holes. Dark Energy could simply be kinetic energy: there is no acceleration (no acceleration has really been measured yet), the bigbang could be a real explosion of a black ring in Euclidean space, so farther the objects are from the central point, the more kinetic energy they possess... Space is not spherical, we will never see the same object from two opposite sides of the Universe. The Universe is at least 26 billion years old at our actual timerate, not 13.5 billion years. We see the edge of the Universe in the past at 13 billion ly, assuming a constant velocity, this means the edge is now at 26 billion ly from us.

Spacetime creation and conformal coordinates expansion is not the fruit of Relativity but the fruit of the Theory of the creation of matter and spacetime from nothing...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13792-cosmic-time-warp-revealed-in-slowmotion-supernovae.html
This article talks about the proof of the expansion of space, but in fact, it's just a proof of larger redshifts related to higher relative velocities according to Special Relativity and time dilation ...

http://world.std.com/~sweetser/quaternions/ps/unified_force.pdf

Hints from the past: The largest black holes in the Universe

My black ring model is based on Kaluza-Klein Tower Equation:
http://everything.explained.at/Kaluza%e2%80%93Klein_theory/

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

Not convinced yet? Watch this!

Through the Wormhole: Are There More Than Three Dimensions?
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/are-there-more-than-three-dimensions/