The Domain Theory

  • 42 Replies
  • 13737 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
The Domain Theory
« on: 10/03/2014 14:04:10 »
Highlights,

I have come up with this theory as an attempt to explain some of the mysterious phenomena in the universe that have remained without a generally acceptable explanation.

Some of these are listed as follows:

- The fact that light acts as a particle and a wave simultaneously
- Differences in the elements properties
- Dark Matter/Energy
- The 5 forces (including Dark Energy Effect)
- Mass Effect
- Virtual Particles

Added:
- The theory in this stage is merely a proposal, an attempt to start looking and find the missing variables of Quantum Mechanics, raised by Einstein in his papers where he stated that "Quantum Mechanics is correct indeed, but it is not the complete way of describing reality", we try to continue after his footsteps here.
- I am not saying or considering the theory as an empirical fact yet, -even if the style of writing would give such an impression, the style meant to help readers to live the possibility of the hypothesis and also for the purpose of convergence of views- but what I'm really saying, it deserves the investigation.
- The theory is intending to build upon the current theories and complete them,and not intending to replace them.


To me it is just like looking from a different view point at what we call the standard model, which theoretically implies:

1- There must be smaller particles composing all types of fermion particles and boson particles, which we will call the "muzzos".


2-  Unifying the 5 forces as one entity presented in a domain consisting of particles, which we will call "azzmos" (the vacuum/space-time)

- The "azzmo" particle existed inside the singularity before the big bang and it was the only reason that caused the explosion and later the inflation that followed.
- The "azzmo" particle has no mass, no electric charges, in fact mass, electric charges, electromagnetic fields, the strong force & gravity are all the result of the interaction between "azzmos" & "muzzos" at many different levels.
- The "azzmo" particle has information on it -DNA like- that allows it to react differently in each specific condition and give particles and atoms their properties through these different levels of interaction.
- The "azzmo" particle cannot be detected, nothing will reflect or collide with it because it's the medium through which everything is moving and the single element that keeps everything moving by virtue of its force (an infinite energy that will be released in interactions with regard to E=mc² at the quantum level), and all things will even cease to exist without it.
- The “azzmos” share information among themselves at the highest possible velocity, which means they have to be Faster Than Light (FTL)


3- Any specific composition by a number of "muzzos" makes a different particle thus makes it interact differently with the ""azzmos"

4- Particles consisting of "muzzos" can change from one type of particle to another in specific conditions as a result of decay, particle fusion or fusion of free muzzos, just as atoms do, in the inside of stars under extreme heat conditions.

5- Dark Energy (an effect caused by interactions between Azzmos & dark bosons which have limited interactions with the Azzmos). Dark Matter are particles made of "muzzos" but they have a limited interaction - with "azzmos" that's why we cannot detect it.
6- in some cases, Virtual Particles are generated by the reaction of "azzmos" & "muzzos" converted by the "azzmos" from a dark particle -a particle that has a very limited interaction- to a real one and vise versa -back to vacuum-, i.e. in a manner similar to that described in (4) above. 

7- Dark Energy (bosons) & Dark Matter particles can be converted to Normal Energy & Matter whether they were virtual particles or real particles -which are actually just like long-life virtual particles- and vise versa, also in the manner described in (4) above.

8- Dark Energy bosons are produced in the center of the universe and radiated continuously, and they're streaming everywhere all the time.

9- The "azzmo" particles interact with particles from below the quantum level -muzzos- to the quantum level and above (as packages of muzzos).

10- Azzmos are also responsible for the properties of all elements. Not only that, but I would also say that they are responsible for practically everything else and at all levels too.

11- All laws of physics are actually coded inside the "azzmos"

Added:
The below link is a PDF file which is extracted from the discussion so far, it's in columns so it should be easier to read (for new readers to follow up).

PDF Last Updated in 23rd Jun 2014: The Domain Theory | Version 2.0.1
« Last Edit: 02/11/2014 00:26:06 by aasimz »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: Theoretically Speaking
« Reply #1 on: 15/03/2014 15:39:55 »
To elaborate even more:

- Virtual Particles:

These are a kind of combined forces -I believe most likely the weak and colored forces -in the manner of the type of effect- two or more, that hold the "muzzos" together (in this case direct interactions with the azzmos will take place, so that bosons are not needed at this level), virtual particles, in return, can be identified as other particles that have been created in conditions where it resulted in weak-bonded "muzzos", which will not affect most of the characteristics of the particle, that's why it decays into other smaller particles.

The photons created in the sun have exactly the same components (kernel) as the virtual ones, except the real particles generated in conditions where the bonds (as there is no bosons involved at this level and it's a direct interaction with the azzmos, these are considered virtual bonds between the "muzzos" and are designed to be super strong.) and the stronger the bonds between the muzzos, the lesser will be the mass of the particles & the longer will their life be. The theory upholds that the change in the strength of the bonds below the quantum level is clearly relative to the change of mass and other behaviors of the particle.

- Dark Matter/Energy & AntiMatter:

Looking at what we have experienced as Antimatter where two particles -Particle & Anti Particle-annihilate each other after they collide, we can either conclude that we have finally broken these bonds between the muzzos making them go free again or that they have been converted back to dark particles.
As there is an extremely strong energy released by such collisions, we should feel inclined to the idea that the forces holding the muzzos together are broken causing the release of the tremendous energy.
As to the question of why Antimatter does not exist all around us, the reason may lie in the conditions it was created in; that is to say it didn't go well with the different phases of cosmological development, just as it was like in the case of the virtual photon & the real one.
 
it is also a possibility (as far as I can see it) that Antimatter & Matter collisions are in some way related to triggering the birth of stars given the similarity of conditions when compared to those associated with the LHC.


--
Sorry for my bad English.
« Last Edit: 20/05/2014 18:30:44 by aasimz »

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretically Speaking
« Reply #2 on: 15/03/2014 22:39:24 »
Could you show us the maths for that please. (Your English is fine, but the language of physical theories is mathematics.)
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: Theoretically Speaking
« Reply #3 on: 16/03/2014 18:20:44 »
Well, When I first thought about this theory I didn't know about the "Grand Unified Theory (GUT)" although when I read about it I found that it has about 80% of the theory, except for some differences but gravity was out of the union, also later I have come to know that in 1979 "the electroweak theory" had the weak and electromagnetic interactions unified as one force.

As am no Physicists nor a Mathematician but I thought of sharing these ideas with the people who can really put it under the microscope and evaluate it, then correct what's wrong and complete what's missing or maybe make a new theory out of it, or even drop it, it's an open source.

- Yesterday I got reply from Dr. M. Goulette, ATLAS physicist at CERN regarding the theory and he suggested:
- There are some mistakes in the theory that need to be fixed and it needs to be completed, as part of it reflected my weak understanding of the annihilation process
- He also advised me to use data from "Particle Data Group" at http://pdg.lbl.gov/index.html, but I had difficulty trying to understand everything I found in the reference source.
- He stated, "To reinforce the whole project, I strongly suggest you to try to propose some experimental setup, or experiment to detect your muzzos, or make some evidence of the theory. Don't forget it needs to be compatible with gravity, relativity, and explain what the Standard Models explains."

-------
The below link is a recent research at "University of Hamburg by Jörn Kersten" that I've found and it's also relating Dark Radiation -dark energy interactions- to late decays, also relating the life time to the temperature at the moment of decays.

Dark Radiation from Particle Decay
« Last Edit: 20/05/2014 18:30:49 by aasimz »

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Re: Theoretically Speaking
« Reply #4 on: 16/03/2014 23:44:01 »
So, will you be sharing any of the math, or not?
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: Theoretically Speaking
« Reply #5 on: 17/03/2014 00:23:40 »
If I had any math, I would definitely share it, that's what am asking you and others to do, of course if you believe it worth it.

I know it's the other way around, but am just trying to connect the dots, am a chitchat guy with an imagination.
« Last Edit: 17/03/2014 00:29:02 by aasimz »

*

Offline Colmik

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 11
    • View Profile
Re: Are versions made of smaller particles?
« Reply #6 on: 06/04/2014 15:05:45 »
Ophiolite. why don't you say "If you say it in Algonquin, I'll consider it - otherwise, don't bother me with it".
Clearly, aasimz comprehension of mathematics is similar to, I imagine, your understanding of Algonquin - but that doesn't mean that his thoughts are unworthy of your time.  As your suggestion is that you do speak mathematics - and as you follow this science forum, you clearly have an interest in the subject - then I imagine that you have the intelligence and knowledge to answer him in the language in which he posed his ideas - English.  While I have huge respect of anybody with the attributes that you suggest you have, I find your responses here elitist and pompous.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Are versions made of smaller particles?
« Reply #7 on: 06/04/2014 16:07:26 »
- light acts as a particle and a wave simultaneously
That's incorrect. In fact you have in backwards. Photons can act as a particle or wave but never at the same time.

Also, this thread belongs in the New Theory forum, not here.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2014 16:12:07 by Pmb »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: Are versions made of smaller particles?
« Reply #8 on: 06/04/2014 16:16:16 »
- light acts as a particle and a wave simultaneously
That's incorrect. In fact you have in backwards. Photons can act as a particle or wave but never at the same time.

Also, this thread belongs in the New Theory forum, not here.

This is one of several experiments that concluded this statement:

Particle and wave-like behavior of light measured simultaneously
« Last Edit: 20/05/2014 18:30:54 by aasimz »

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Are versions made of smaller particles?
« Reply #9 on: 06/04/2014 16:59:18 »
- light acts as a particle and a wave simultaneously
That's incorrect. In fact you have in backwards. Photons can act as a particle or wave but never at the same time.

Also, this thread belongs in the New Theory forum, not here.

This is one of several experiments that concluded this statement:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121101141107.htm

Don't believe everything that you read. That page says
Quote
Surprisingly, when a photon is observed, it behaves either as a particle or as a wave. But both aspects are never observed simultaneously. In fact, which behaviour it exhibits depends on the type of measurement it is presented with.
This is a new result and has to stand the test of time. However that doesn't mean that we were wrong all along and that things like electrons and photons always behave like a particle and a wave a the same time. At best this means that the found a case where that's not true.

The author of that page says something quite wrong too, i.e.
Quote
For instance, quantum theory predicts that a particle (for instance a photon) can be in different places at the same time. In fact it can even be in infinitely many places at the same time, exactly as a wave.
That is total nonsense. Quantum theory does not say that. It says that there is a finite probability that a particle can be measured in infinitely many places at the same time.

An acquaintance of mine (also a physicist) used to teach QM and is now the author of a famous QM textbook author. Let me bounce this off of him and I'll get back to you.

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: Are versions made of smaller particles?
« Reply #10 on: 06/04/2014 20:19:47 »
An acquaintance of mine (also a physicist) used to teach QM and is now the author of a famous QM textbook author. Let me bounce this off of him and I'll get back to you.

This is sounds great, it would be even superb if you can ask him to give us his thoughts about the whole theory as well, thank you.

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: Are versions made of smaller particles?
« Reply #11 on: 06/04/2014 20:47:53 »
The author of that page says something quite wrong too, i.e.
Quote
For instance, quantum theory predicts that a particle (for instance a photon) can be in different places at the same time. In fact it can even be in infinitely many places at the same time, exactly as a wave.
That is total nonsense. Quantum theory does not say that. It says that there is a finite probability that a particle can be measured in infinitely many places at the same time.

Both statements are the same to me, if you are talking about the same particle that is measured.
The other way to explain this nonsense is through the azzmo's domain, which is infinitely everywhere and shares information through interactions.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2014 21:55:08 by aasimz »

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Are versions made of smaller particles?
« Reply #12 on: 06/04/2014 22:17:17 »
Quote from: aasimz
Both statements are the same to me, if you are talking about the same particle that is measured.
They are definitely not the same.

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: Are versions made of smaller particles?
« Reply #13 on: 07/04/2014 01:20:27 »
Quote from: aasimz
Both statements are the same to me, if you are talking about the same particle that is measured.
They are definitely not the same.

Am sorry, but I've failed to understand how they differ, can you please explain how?

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #14 on: 07/04/2014 20:30:04 »
Analysis

Ok, let me share with you folks the steps of rational thinking that led me to the above-stated conclusion in a short story composed to bring the idea of the theory home to everyone and give a clue as to where it  comes from!

The spark

I have always been frustrated as I went on thinking for years about atoms, and how they differ from each other. I was asking myself how could a number that has the same components make a completely different element with completely different characteristics. To me, it was like when you have a plastic bag with a ball inside and then you find that when you add another ball into the same bag with typically the same characteristics as the one already there, the plastic bag would begin to shift color or turn into a gas. The experience would have a touch of magic about it and therefore gives you a feeling that you will stand there without having any scientifically accepted explanation to it.

Let’s take an example: the Helium 2 and the Lithium 3, with only one additional set of exactly the same particles (proton + neutron + electron) changes the melting point of the atom from 0.9 K to 400 something K, from a gas to a solid, and from a noble gas to a metal. It’s hard to find or think of any explanation for these differences in characteristics let alone other characteristics such as the different light wavelength reactions -reflection (absorption+emission), emission or None "just go through"-.

A journey outside the universe

One day I was thinking of finding a way –which, I thought, would somehow be logical - to imagine what would happen if I go beyond the edge of the universe. Upon reaching the edge, I simply saw myself vanishing- not even evaporating- just vanishing at the edge. I forcefully pushed those thoughts through and I completely "navigated" to the other side, but it turns out that I can’t see, I can’t move, I can't think and I simply can’t even exist!

None of the laws of physics we know of would apply outside the universe. I asked myself why? Why it doesn't apply here and it applies there? What would make THIS possible there and impossible here?
There has to be something IN there which is not OUT here, and that happens to be the azzmos domain.
It became very obvious to me that what was traditionally known as "the vacuum" isn't a vacuum at all, it simply and logically can't be. 
The only real vacuum is out there.. out of the entire bubble "the universe that we are part of ".

Back to earth

So when I came back to earth, to the atoms and elements where I had left them, but of course bringing down the domain concept with me, I came to see and realize that these number differences of subatomic particles are just a code just like Morse code or some other code, a language which makes these particles interact with that domain differently according to their number.

Then I continued to research and study about the Standard Model and came to believe more and more that all the answers we need do actually lie in this domain, in these azzmos.

As you can see I later had to come up with the muzzos particles which represent the other face of the coin:

- All fermions will consist of a kernel, which identifies the particle.  This kernel is made up of particles (a Kernel Element which I have called KE-01 & KE-02) which are, in turn, made up of muzzos, and they have what I call a communication shield also consisting of muzzos orbiting around the kernel, and these muzzos on the shield will be emitted or absorbed in one form of boson in each specific condition

- A Boson acts as a moderator between the azzmos and other fermions. Each Boson has its own corresponding fermion (Except for dark bosons which affect even the bosons), and it should have only a kernel and no communication shield (except for virtual bosons which may or may not have an apparent communication shield), Bosons kernels also consist of muzzos which are merged/fused to form bonded KE-01 & KE-02 particles then emitted from a fermion communication shield.




21 Seconds Animation: Fermions, Composition & Structure | The Domain Theory

- Appling the same code rule to the different levels, we conclude that  the numbers of muzzos (and may be some other attributes) make different particle characteristics therefore a completely different particle

Your turn folks

Again.. the reason am sharing this theory is because I strongly believe in the theory, and I just know for a fact that I can’t personally support it neither mathematically nor experimentally, I need the help of other people to achieve that, and I really deeply believe it can bring us somewhere.     
« Last Edit: 13/06/2014 16:00:29 by aasimz »

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #15 on: 08/04/2014 12:38:37 »
I don't understand your post, what are you trying to get at. You're using different words to describe the same thing, bosons are the force carrier's not azzmo.muzzo's are broken into smaller pieces, they are called quarks, which are the building blocks of atoms. As far as the atoms are concerned in your statement of adding one proton. Most of the characteristics of an atom, are in the electrons. Chemical bonding is electron sharing between different atoms to balance out the shells. Helium is a noble gas, because it shells are already full, so it is doesn't bond well with other atoms. If you look at a periodic table. This is why things are arranged in columns, things in the same column have similar properties.

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #16 on: 08/04/2014 13:43:52 »
I don't understand your post, what are you trying to get at. You're using different words to describe the same thing, bosons are the force carrier's not azzmo.muzzo's are broken into smaller pieces,

Instead of saying that bosons are the force carriers I would rather say:

First the azzmos have infinite energy that would be released in interactions with regard to the E=mc² at the quantum level.
Then these bosons are actually the mediator which can interact with the azzmos to produce such an effect (what we perceive as a force) which affects all types of fermions. Each type of boson will have its own corresponding type of fermion.


Quote
they are called quarks, which are the building blocks of atoms. As far as the atoms are concerned in your statement of adding one proton.

Yes they are called quarks and they are considered a member of the fermions family (quarks "6 types" and leptons "6 types" each with a corresponding antiparticle).

The theory I am trying to put together suggests that these quarks are actually made up of smaller particles typically the same as the ones making the electrons and all other fermions & bosons.

Just before the quarks bond together, they emit some of their muzzos in the form of "pions & gluons" which will be transmitting between particles all the time. Thus the total mass of a proton or a neutron should be less than the combined value of mass of the separated quarks, the mass defect expected here at this level has been actually measured in the upper level where the combined nucleus and separated protons & neutrons have a mass defect. I am saying that the process described above explains this mass defect for both levels.


Quote
Most of the characteristics of an atom, are in the electrons. Chemical bonding is electron sharing between different atoms to balance out the shells. Helium is a noble gas, because it shells are already full, so it is doesn't bond well with other atoms. If you look at a periodic table. This is why things are arranged in columns, things in the same column have similar properties.

Yes characteristics related to chemical reactions among different atoms are related to the electrons and their excitement, but we cannot say that all other characteristics can be explained in this manner.

Added:
And since you brought this, the reason I called the suggested orbiting muzzos in a fermion a communication shield? Because I believe the electrons are also a communication shield, and the quantum world looks completely different but the theory is simply saying: just as atoms have a communication shield allowing them to communicate with each other, these particles also do. It is just that the interactions are completely different and take place at a different level.
« Last Edit: 13/06/2014 15:58:54 by aasimz »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #17 on: 08/04/2014 14:46:32 »
Particles decay,

Let's take an example: A neutron is converted into a proton by emitting an electron & an electron antineutrino.

The neutron composite of an up quark and two down quarks (udd) is subject to change when one of these down quarks decays into an up quark by emitting a W boson in which case the neutron is converted into a proton which has (uud) which also has less mass than the neutron.
The W Boson decays almost immediately to an electron & electron antineutrino.

I think this would be very well explained if the concept of muzzos is applied to it.
« Last Edit: 20/05/2014 18:31:10 by aasimz »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #18 on: 08/04/2014 21:34:05 »
The Domain

O.K what if we think of it from the azzmos point of view?

The azzmos only interact with the muzzos, and since it was already suggested that the muzzos are the smallest fundamental particles in existence, then the smallest package of information, like a bit of information yes or no, on/off, the azzmos chooses to react to these muzzos at different levels at the same time.

How?

I thought about it as something like a computer that processes bits of information -each one independently- and those bits are in the middle of a byte and they act to process the whole byte independently and then process an upper level of a collection of bytes independently all together and at the same time using a completely different set of commands in each case and on something like a completely different platform but with the very same processor. They also share the information about conditions at all these levels given that these conditions have the potential of affecting the results at each of those different levels separately.

When these azzmos sense muzzos, they share this information between themselves at the maximum possible velocity I believe it could possibly be way FTL.
« Last Edit: 13/06/2014 15:58:59 by aasimz »

*

Offline Chadis Muskero

  • First timers
  • *
  • 7
    • View Profile
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #19 on: 08/04/2014 22:14:11 »
Anyone is free to reply to this post, right?

I have 2 net friends who I asked about this topic and the 1st (a computer programmer) said that within quantum fields of our brain (of how it functions or somewhere there) he said that in their company, a large electronics company, while they were developing a new kind of gadget that could function within the eyes' visual spectrum -based on graphene research, they observed that the same phenomenon as to the relation between the universe's particle build up, speed, and functionality are also similarly close to any other matter, solid or not. The eyes, though may not be powerful as any other microscope or camera, can still see things that no other artificial machines can.

That said, when I received my second friend's reply, a chemist, at which he said, Anti-matter technology was still in a contained experimental stage. If it does actually explains the relation of this domain's differences, then it would as if you have rejected the idea that life is purely made up of rejecting-accepting atomic relationships.

This made me think that what we know so far are actually still not enough to give a definite answer to this theory.. We could only assume that your theory might actually (or not at all) connected to yet another theory of another dimension (or in this case domain). And if we do have to elaborate in this, then the quantum level connection between light particles and it's co-relating substances such as the elemental particles, and unseen energies beyond our visual spectrum, are also to be explained.

We could only speculate at this stage.

But in opinion's sake, I think that what we know so far is only enough to prove that we are not the most intelligent race in the universe. I believe that anyone would have to agree that the four forces you, we, are talking about here, is one topic fiction is not impossible to not be included.

Sorry if this reply is somewhat alarmingly rude for some readers. I just want to say what I know and found out. I'm afraid for the direction of the topic.

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #20 on: 09/04/2014 17:07:11 »
Anyone is free to reply to this post, right?

Of course any one can join the discussion, if his/her entry won't violate the forum terms I guess.

Quote
I have 2 net friends who I asked about this topic and the 1st (a computer programmer) said that within quantum fields of our brain (of how it functions or somewhere there) he said that in their company, a large electronics company, while they were developing a new kind of gadget that could function within the eyes' visual spectrum -based on graphene research, they observed that the same phenomenon as to the relation between the universe's particle build up, speed, and functionality are also similarly close to any other matter, solid or not. The eyes, though may not be powerful as any other microscope or camera, can still see things that no other artificial machines can.

Am not sure if I understood exactly what you say here, but I guess this could be supporting the theory.

Quote
That said, when I received my second friend's reply, a chemist, at which he said, Anti-matter technology was still in a contained experimental stage. If it does actually explains the relation of this domain's differences, then it would as if you have rejected the idea that life is purely made up of rejecting-accepting atomic relationships.

no comment.

Quote
This made me think that what we know so far are actually still not enough to give a definite answer to this theory..

Well.. never say never, right?
We gonna have to work on that and see what could be the possibilities.
« Last Edit: 09/04/2014 20:15:18 by aasimz »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #21 on: 11/04/2014 00:30:35 »
Connections

One of the fundamental principles of the theory is based on connecting all things one to the other on a large scale.

Now let us have a look at what I have called the atom's communication shield -or electrons- and consider why they have rules of orbiting around layers and why do the higher level energy electrons tend to move to upper layers?
Why is there a maximum of 7 layers? Why do we have specific rules for the numbers of electrons in each layer?
Why do we also have 7 layers of atmosphere surrounding the Earth? Why do we have 7 layers of earth, why do we only have 7 light wavelength ranges visible to us? why does the major scale of music has just 7 notes? what is the week? And why does it have 7 days, why does the string theory predict 6 other bubbles other than our universe. To be sure there are even more 7s that I can't recall now.


It is also noteworthy to say that the so-called Golden Ratio -1.618- is found everywhere in the universe, from the atomic structure, through out the solar system, and to the humongous galaxy structure.

It is fair to say that we can begin to do some mathematical manipulation. Obviously, the Golden Ratio is common to many things even though it is applicable at many different levels, that is why I am tempted to trace it and dig up other examples as an additional proof of the universality of this ratio.

This theory is intended to explain just all that and more, all together.
LITERALLY, IT IS THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING.

Resources:
1-ResearchGate | The Golden Ratio in the atomic structure
2-ScienceDaily | Golden ratio discovered in quantum world: Hidden symmetry observed for the first time in solid state matter
3-goldennumber.net | The Golden ratio in the solar system
4-tallbloke.wordpress.com | The Golden ratio in the solar system
« Last Edit: 27/06/2014 19:16:56 by aasimz »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8171
    • View Profile
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #22 on: 11/04/2014 01:10:37 »
... why do we find the Golden ratio -1.618- everywhere ...

In plants it's optimum-geometry arrived at by natural-selection ... http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat2.html#why

http://io9.com/5985588/15-uncanny-examples-of-the-golden-ratio-in-nature
« Last Edit: 11/04/2014 01:16:39 by RD »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #23 on: 11/04/2014 01:24:18 »
... why do we find the Golden ratio -1.618- everywhere ...

In plants it's optimum-geometry arrived at by natural-selection ... http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat2.html#why


Exactly.. As it's the perfect way for all leaves to get use of light perfectly.
your whole body also functions perfectly because of the 1.618 ratio that to be found everywhere in our body, from the exterior structure through our heart blood flow in the perfect pumping mechanism a 1.618 vortex -discovered by Leonardo Da Vinci- to our DNA.

The sun and the stars moving in that vortex.. The curvature of what we call spacetime is in that vortex.

Even the tornado is in that vortex.!

Would water crystals & snowflakes also be related to natural selection, what is natural selection and what makes it function the way it is.

here are some really good videos:

Nature by numbers.

The helical model video 1.

The helical model video 2.

And my favourite:
Beautiful Paint Science In Slow Motion

These different shapes that changes with frequency vibration in such experiments has been found also in the shells of turtles, different shapes. The very shapes Darwin has described with his natural selection, at the Caribbean's, how could this ever be related to natural selection?
Frequency vibration experiments
« Last Edit: 25/06/2014 03:21:22 by aasimz »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #24 on: 11/04/2014 14:15:38 »
Crazy math,

To show how far the theory goes well with all relevant principles of mathematics, so far

The mathematical equivalent concluded and finally agreed upon by both Dr. Leonard Susskind & Prof. Stephen Hawking (see link below to have an idea) has led them to think of the universe as a 3D projection of a 2D information at the edge of the universe.

The universe as a hologram!

The Black Hole Wars: My Battle with Stephen Hawking

What appears to be completely illogical becomes very easily explained by only considering the existence of a domain with such suggested properties.


How do we interact with the universe,

Let's think about our interaction as human beings with the universe. Here is how it works: all the information we get through our senses is converted into electrical pulses that would be translated later in the brain.

Let’s take a close look into the eye for example: the photon hits the Retina at a specific point causing a chemical reaction to take place there converting information such as the wavelength of the photon reflected. Then these chemically generated electric pulses -information- travel to our brain where the total information that came from the Retina for one frame becomes a full image which is flipped upside down -fixed- and then broadcasted to you as an influential suggestion. Think of it as something like how dreams are visualized, but not exactly.

We don't actually see what we visualize when we see it with our eyes! It is this broadcast that we actually see! The eyes are only the tool that captures and detects, in this process, 30 to 34 frames per second, and what you see does actually have a very small fraction of delay from reality.

I just have to point out here that it is not possible for visible spectrum wavelength range photons to ever pass inside our skull & reach the brain.

And since we all sense the same stuff, we can conclude that the broadcast is in perfect match with the information in reality.

Bearing all that in mind, you folks would come to see how we can have a single logic that relates everything we perceive by our senses to all other things in this theory.
« Last Edit: 30/08/2014 01:07:31 by aasimz »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #25 on: 13/04/2014 22:41:10 »
Gravity,

First let's do this: I like to have a single string connecting all the material that we are talking about.
We need to look with the eye of our imagination at all these motions and feel them,


1- Spinning muzzos are orbiting around spinning particles which are  made up of spinning muzzos at a very high speed, all composing a spinning quark.
2- Spinning protons and neutrons are the components of a spinning nucleus that has spinning electrons orbiting around it at a very high speed.
3- The Earth is rotating around itself at the speed of 1,675 km/h -at the equator-, the Moon -which also spins (rotates) orbits the Earth at a speed of 3,683 kilometers per hour
4- And the Earth is orbiting our sun, dragging the moon with it, at about 107,000 km/h
5- The entire solar system is dragged by our spinning sun at the speed of 828,000 km/h in an orbit running around the galactic center
6- The center of the gigantic Milky way is a gigantic spinning black hole which is dragging all these billions of stars with their planets and moons in a trip to orbit the mysterious center of the universe at a speed of about 2,160,000 km/h
7- All the universe is spinning (by the galaxies that orbit around its spinning center) and expanding and moving apart at a fast speed

We are in the middle of huge activities, and yet we apparently don't feel it.
But we can definitely understand the supreme power of gravity after all.


Back to work:

A massless spin-2 particle is predicted to have a characteristic of a dark boson by this theory (another boson like the boson responsible for dark energy effect), so we may never be able to detect the Graviton, but it's there.

- The graviton travels possibly at way FTL, but more likely a very small fraction FTL.

- The azzmos interaction with the whole planet as a huge package of information at this level.

- The azzmos inside the occupied space shares information about the total pack of information with the azzmos around it. Thus it sets this limited (with regard to mass) gradual range -Gravitational field- this would be the cause of what we call curvature of space-time which is just a virtual curvature created by these azzmos laws.

- When azzmos senses another matter -a planet or a particle- entering this limited gradual range area -Gravitational field-, it interacts with both objects to start emitting these gravitons (the object with wider range will start the emission process first because it didn't enter the narrower object range yet), these gravitons then travel to where they will be absorbed and then emitted back again, and this transmission continues till the object escapes the range, if it will ever do.
These transmissions of gravitons will cause the effect that we call a "gravitational force" with the interactions of these bosons and with the azzmos they're passing through. The result can be imagined as invisible small threads between particles which, together, make an invisible big rope that pulls the whole object. This would happen when the object is locked in orbit. These ropes stretch (loosing effect) and contract (pull effect) above and below the orbit lock which is relative to the mass and velocity of both objects.

How do bosons get emitted? Simply by fusion of muzzos from the particle communication shield, after which they are released as bosons.
The reason behind detecting the other bosons for other forces in the LHC Accelerator is not because it was coupled with the particle as a boson and pulled apart (littered) with collision. But I would suggest,  instead, that it is because they destroyed the destination it was aiming at with a collision before it reached that destination (or suddenly with collision escaped out of the small range (field) of these forces before it reaches the destination it is aiming at) therefore it continues towards the detectors.

It is still likely that all bosons are orbiting the particle kernel as bosons, not free muzzos (so no fusion before emission is needed), but it will be difficult to explain what kind of force will hold such different types of bosons together.

It is not true that the same "azzmos" are interacting with the same matter all the time. Since everything is on the move, the azzmos share information; actually particles of azzmos that we've just passed through would never interact with us ever again.

Mass,

Mass is indeed the constant that most forces are based on, and most laws of the universe are apparently related to it.
We all acknowledge that it was announced at CERN that a particle with the exact properties expected to be for the Higgs Boson was detected, leading to the conclusion that a Higgs Field has to be dominant covering all edges of the universe.

I'm still inclined to the idea of a Higgsless model where mass effect is actually determined by a direct interaction of the Azzmos with the Muzzos, I also consider that I might be wrong about this.
« Last Edit: 27/06/2014 15:35:35 by aasimz »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #26 on: 16/04/2014 00:47:07 »
Light,

We all know that photons are the bosons responsible for the electromagnetic force effect. The photon having these characteristics (given by azzmos laws) that make it act the way we use it to interact with the universe as described earlier.

If we look at particles other than photons -normal matter (not bosons)- that will have a velocity which approaches the speed of light when they approach the event horizon of a massive black hole, it will make us wonder if the light particles -photons- would go FTL when they approach the event horizon of an extremely immense, huge & massive black hole? There is quite a big possibility I believe.

Considering that everything was moving apart with far FTL at the time immediately following the Big Bang therefore everything has ever since been slowing down to this day.

Light speed, is it a constant?!

The speed of light appears as a constant for us only because it gradually slows down by a super small fraction in a very long period of time (compared to the big scale of time), so we can't measure that difference.  We can say, though, that after millions of years there may be an easily measured difference, if we will still be there!

If that turned out to be true, then our calculations for the estimation of the distances of other far away galaxies and their current positions would be wrong, thus the size of the universe as well, and also our estimation of the age of the universe. The assumption is that they should all be much less than the estimation we have in hand.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2014 16:40:22 by aasimz »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #27 on: 21/04/2014 13:05:10 »
Light & Gravity,

Assuming that the universe is functioning as suggested in this theory, let's elaborate on how gravity affects light particles.

OK, Dark Bosons are also acting as a mediator for the azzmos to apply other forces to all particles (fermions & bosons), and the dark energy force (Push) effect is the opposite of gravity force (Pull) effect, but both forces have their effect even on the bosons.

So, as I said earlier, the photon -like other real bosons- has nothing orbiting around it, but it still has the kernel and -maybe 7- empty virtual layers around it.


Bending of Light in the domain (the vacuum/space-time),

The photon is considered a massless particle, and when a photon passes through the gravitational field of a giant object that has a huge mass, it (the photon) will absorb multi gravitons -emitted by the object- and will immediately transmit them back, and as this transmission takes place in an extremely short moment of time, and at the same time for more than one graviton, the photon will temporarily gain mass as part of its layers will be temporarily occupied. This process will cause a more powerful gravity pull effect, which will result in the bending of light. as the photon gradually escapes the field and in the process sheds off all gravitons (that were on its temporary communication shield) then continues with its momentum, & its original mass.

Black holes & Light,

When the photon approaches the gravitational field of a black hole with an extremely high density, it will be hammered in the same manner with a lot of gravitons coming from the black hole. But this time it will reach a point of temporary gain of mass that would make it dive and never come out, because it will not have a chance to escape the field.

There is a certain constant for the affect of one single graviton (pull effect) over one single unit of mass (muzzo) we need to calculate that studying the smallest particles data and their decays. I think this should be possible, we need the people with math to participate please, if anyone has found any other way to support the theory.
comparisons between calculations related to light bending and the mass of different objects causing the bending could also be somewhere to go.   
« Last Edit: 09/08/2014 00:17:07 by aasimz »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #28 on: 29/04/2014 18:54:43 »
Entangled Particles,

You will probably recall that I've used the term "way FTL" earlier to indicate the possibility that some particles and information in the domain can travel at a velocity extremely faster than the speed of light as we know it today. 

The funny thing is that I didn't know about quantum entanglement at all, when I first got that idea and therefore had to think about the possibility of FTL particles & a faster information between the azzmos, by only looking at the effect of gravity on light and that was enough to make me conclude that anything, whatsoever, that had an effect on it has to be (in any imaginable way) faster than light. But when I later learned about QE, it was like I've finally found a definite real proof of the existence of this domain;, it was the moment I became excited & later decided to share the idea.


Entangled Particles have been tested in small distances but the measurements have been conducted with a timing deemed to produce the expected effect almost instantly, which would actually be FTL if we consider the related distances.

As we see no time difference (instant information transformation between entangled particles), it may be worth it if we try to do such an experiment with so much greater distances as is likely to help us detect a difference in time and therefore determine the velocity of that information.

Probabilities of the huge distances experiment:

A) If we start with the Earth (Point A) & the Moon, Mars or any other planet (Point B) and we are able to detect a small time difference, then it has to be a limited finite speed which also has to be a little bit FTL, somehow, as it has already been proved to be so by QE experiments & quantum teleportation.
B) If after applying the huge distances experiment, we still fail to detect any time difference between settled particles, then we should think of the following possibilities:
    1) It could either be an infinite velocity for information exchange between the azzmos (actually instant), or
    2) a finite speed but extremely faster than light that we will need wider distances for testing such as, for example, the Earth (Point A) & out of the galaxy spaceship (Point B) to measure it with our most accurate and precise time measurement technology and actually discover the time difference.

Even though the experiment looks impossible for the time being, it may become possible one day.
Though I have no obvious reason to think that way, I am inclined to believe that possibility # (2) under (B) is more likely to come true, and that possibility # (1) comes next.


Please share your thoughts with me, even if there was no math, or experimental setup suggestions.

Last and not least, I leave you folks with another famous lovely connection which can be explained by the domain, and we can elaborate on that later.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2014 18:46:41 by aasimz »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #29 on: 05/05/2014 20:20:16 »
The Paths of the Universe,

First let's go back to the birth of the universe. After the big explosion, matter followed an uneven rule of distribution which was demonstrated in the form of differences in density, energy & temperature. Those differences didn't come by chance or just out of the blue. Not at all, but they had their roots in the very nature of the domain. To explain this I say that the azzmos are connected to one another in a pattern network. This network has paths with branches and it is within the small threads of these paths that the particles flow and stream.

To make it simple I would liken these paths of the quantum universe to something like a huge 3D fabric weaved in such patterns as mentioned above in all directions. As a result, that fabric would reflect in all upper levels through the pattern of brain cells to the entire shape of the universe.
If you think of the Azzmos dealing with the Muzzos on the assumption that they have to either be of the same size as the muzzos or smaller, it will be easier for you to imagine how small these quantum paths (threads) are.


The Real Strings,
& Particle+Wave behavior,
& Quantum Fluctuation,


If you think of these paths as cables, each cable with many small wires inside and that they are all running in the same direction, each small thread (path) will represent a different level of energy and therefore a different wavelength. So let's imagine the trip of a photon emitted from a star:

The electrons will settle in a specific path (energy level) if they were bonded with protons & neutrons. This energy level is dependent on the energy level of the atom; the atom itself will settle in a specific path (energy level)- depending on the number of protons & neutrons it contains - the moment they bond (azzmos code).

The electrons on the star's plasma are not bonded with any atoms (that is to say free), therefore they are not settled in a specific path, and the photons emitted then are also not settled therefore they leap from one path to another within the same cable.
Assuming that this photon is traveling in direction Z with the momentum C, and at the same time leaping at the speed of C² from path one (small thread) to another in directions Y & X for unknown distances with regards to the structure of these paths. That will explain both the wave behavior & the vibrating string behavior.

So it's the self same photon but it is shifting from one energy level (path) to another and the moment it interacts with other matter it will have a number of scenarios, such as:

- Depending on the Atom's energy level and the energy level of the photon at the moment of interaction, the photon will go through without interacting with any of electrons in the atom
- Depending on the Atom's energy level and the energy level of the photon at the moment of interaction, the photon will be absorbed and emitted back in a settled specific energy levels (reflection)
- Depending on the Atom's energy level and the energy level of the photon at the moment of interaction, the photon will be absorbed and emitted back in another particle form (absorption)
- Other more scenarios are thinkable


Quantum Leap,

A Photon produced in the bulb has another story here which goes as follows:

An electron going through a material will communicate with an electron in the atom by photon emission and when the transformation of the photons is active, they will, naturally, change their path, and therefore their energy level. As a result, the one in the atom goes to the upper layer at the same speed of information (may be C²). And then when the other electron runs out of the small range, the electron in the atom makes the last transformation (emission) (which will, in most cases, escape to us) and get back to its original layer (energy state or path). 

Because the photon has an extremely small mass, and the transition is extremely fast we don't detect the difference in mass for the electrons.
« Last Edit: 16/07/2014 15:22:15 by aasimz »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #30 on: 19/05/2014 16:06:53 »
Heat,

Heat generated in flames, heat generated by material friction, heat generated through chemical reactions in our body, heat generated in electric devices (e.g. bulb, or computer chip) and heat generated by the sun photons, are all the result of photons transformation between electrons.

Heat & Photons from the Sun,

When a photon emitted from the Sun hits an atom in our skin or comes in contact with any other material (atom), it will be absorbed by one of the electrons in the atom and as described earlier it will change its path (energy level) for a very small fraction of time and then emits the photon back (reflection) returning it to its original path.

It is a well-known fact that in the day time trillions of photons are usually concentrated in a single square centimeter causing a great number of photons to interact with the same atom with the result that all the electrons will be unsettled as they continue to vibrate through different paths due to the continuous transformation of photons (in this case absorption & emission). Then the electromagnetic force (or the Coulomb force) will have its effect on the nuclei (protons) with the vibration of the center of the force, the atom will also vibrate and then pass the vibrations on to other atoms; the end result will be the generation of heat as we know it.

An increased density of light and/or variation of photons energy at the moment of interaction with electrons will both result in an increased heat effect (higher temperature), as the vibrations will then become more and more vigorous.

Extremely active vibrations (extreme heat conditions) will result in weakening and then destroying all kinds of bonds at all different levels.
« Last Edit: 23/06/2014 00:26:26 by aasimz »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #31 on: 25/05/2014 17:54:09 »
Scientists propose collider that could turn light into matter,



The experiment which is proposed just few days ago by a team of scientists, will get adopted soon.
Am already very positive about the results of this experiment, and it would definitely support the theory even more.


 
The Verge | Scientists propose collider that could turn light into matter
The Weather Channel | A New Experiment Could Turn Light Into Matter

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #32 on: 01/06/2014 18:12:43 »
Team first to detect exciton in metal,



Just out of the oven, another discovery supporting the theory.

Quote from: phys.org
The classical theory of electromagnetism provides a good understanding of inputs and outputs of this process, but a microscopic quantum mechanical description of how the light excites the electrons is lacking.

Wouldn't this theory be just the perfect description for the microscopic quantum mechanics.

phys.org | Team first to detect exciton in metal
« Last Edit: 02/06/2014 03:31:46 by aasimz »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #33 on: 08/06/2014 16:12:57 »
General Relativity,



Quote from:  wikipedia.org
Although general relativity is not the only relativistic theory of gravity, it is the simplest such theory that is consistent with the experimental data. Nevertheless, a number of open questions remain, the most fundamental of which is how general relativity can be reconciled with the laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-consistent theory of quantum gravity.

Wikipedia | Introduction to general relativity
« Last Edit: 08/06/2014 16:55:29 by aasimz »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #34 on: 11/06/2014 18:39:25 »
Walter H. G. Lewin, Ph.D.



Professor Walter Lewin, MIT | On Quantum Entanglement

Only 37 seconds, just few words, but very expressive.

Now, what if we consider this Domain!?
« Last Edit: 15/08/2014 22:05:27 by aasimz »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #35 on: 21/06/2014 20:22:30 »
Heat, Bonds & Gravitational Mass,

How could the kinetic energy of the atom have an effect over its gravitational mass (weight)?
Looking back for the explanation suggested earlier describing the small mass defect caused by the binding energy between bonded particles and free ones.

In the same manner,
   - All forces that hold atomic particles together are a result of bosons transformation between these particles, and it takes place in a high speed
   - The momentum of these transforming particles will make them lose a small part of their gravitational mass (mass effect toward gravity/weight), not to confuse it with special relativity mass increase with speed; we are talking about gravitational mass here.
   - All these forces has a small limited range around them (in the particle level)
   - Heat is merely vibrations

When a particle is vibrated to an extent that it starts to go in and out of the small range of the force it will delay the particle transformation then the bosons will remain inside the particles (fermions) for fractions of time more which will reflect in increase of the gravitational mass of the particle.

A certain level of vibrations will destroy the weaker forces first and as it increases there has to be some levels where all other stronger forces should breakdown even the so-called strong force (colored force).



Strings or Muzzos,

Problems, which I have always had with the string theory,
- It still doesn’t explain how could dot-particles split, since the string is only the vibration of the same dot-particle how could it split in two strings each one with a dot-particle, even though the idea of closed strings and open ones are useful when we try to explain massless particles.
But this split in fact will raise the question of what are these dot-particles consisted of?

- And in general what is it that interprets or translates these different vibrations to give particles their characteristics.


The photon is considered a massless particle, even though it behave as a particle with mass in some cases, for example it is effected by gravity, and also it can push a solar sail with its momentum.

In this theory everything is the result of interaction of these Azzmos with particles in all different levels and since the Azzmos somehow have information (DNA like) and behave by them accordingly, so this can be explained by specific number of Muzzos (or K01, K02 Particles) that will be interpreted by the Azzmos and reflected throughout the interactions as characteristic of the particle that will make it massless, this will allow the Muzzos and the K01&K02 particles to a have mass when they are free and in most bonded cases except for few cases when a specific numbers of K01&K02 particles will result in canceling the mass effect for the particle as a whole in this level (by the Azzmos Code), this description will complete the closed string idea.


Black Holes

As per Einstein’s equations of special relativity a particle with mass can’t go at the speed of light, because it will then gain infinite mass, people often would say that the rules of physics breakdown as we are approaching the event horizon of a black hole considering the fact that matter goes at the speed of light there.

I say the equations we have breaks down at that level, not the rules of physics, it is just that we don’t have the correct equations to describe activities in that level, just like objects moving in a velocity near the speed of light are considered a different level therefore needed new equations which were developed by Einstein.

In earth we have a specific escaping velocity, any object with any mass would need to exit our gravitational range should be going with that speed, a bigger planet with more mass will have higher escaping velocity and higher pulling rate and effect.

Simply we know that the black hole is an object with extreme mass that we need a speed that is more than the speed of light to escape from its gravitational range,

So if there is an object with a mass that we will need a velocity that is exactly as the speed of light to escape it, this object will be the edge of this level, and we should receive the light emitted from this object, which will be the most massive neutron star I assume.

Everything beyond that mass should be considered a different level.
« Last Edit: 24/06/2014 23:03:00 by aasimz »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #36 on: 22/06/2014 21:06:21 »


Particle Wave duality,
Two synced double slit experiment chambers,


   - Quantum Mechanics Theory says: "It’s a particle and a wave at the same time, it was believed to be two faces of the same coin, one face at the time, but now we believe it’s both faces at the same time."
   - Quantum Field Theory says: "There are no particles at all, it is only fields, the particle-like behavior is explained by that a field quantum lives and dies as a unit, this suggested phenomenon is called field collapse."

   - This theory as described earlier says: There are both particles and waves, they are independent from each other but the wave affects the particle, so the earlier described paths are not moving as waves, lets consider them as not moving at all, they are still, because the effect of the expansion is too tiny that it will take it millions or maybe billions of years to affect the structure of the waves and therefore their timing with regards to our super slow motion when comparing it with light speed or C2 or our size, so I say all our movements through the universe as described in the GRAVITY Page is resulting what feels like a moving wave to us.

In other words the particle is riding the wave,

Why this is very important?
Well, because the waves are independent then we can calculate exactly where the particle will end up in the detector if we only knew the structure of the wave and where our particle is positioned in the wave when it started riding it.


Why particles act as waves when they are not bonded (free) but not when they are bonded?
Well, let us think as if we are surfing the ocean waves in a board, according to our mass we will accelerate with the wave in a specific speed but a big ship will accelerate slower as it has much more mass, so if you are attached to the ship you will be limited to the motion of the ship riding the wave.
A fixed strong bonded particles (fixed material) will act as a rock deforming the waves of the ocean.

So actually particles do get effected by the wave when they are bonded, it is just that they are less affected over time by the motion of the wave.
We can imagine this type of interactions of the domain as something similar to a fluid with a super-low density.



The experiment,

Based on this concept; and when comparing the idea with all varies double slit experiments, and since everything is moving through these waves even the plate that has the slits on it, therefore this plate would have a smellier deformation in the wave if we passed it through water waves to the ones resulting on the Azzmos waves.

Loop quantum gravity Theory says: "space can be viewed as an extremely fine fabric or network "woven" of finite loops these networks of loops are called spin networks."

To detect these loops as where they start or where they end, we will need to setup two synced double slit experiment chambers, synced with timing in extremely high accuracy and applied extremely near by each other in the same direction, only for a single electron at a time in each experiment chamber, so we can know if the two particles that were shot at the same time in the same direction in two different experiment chambers will ride the same path, and end-up in the same position as in both detectors.

To be accurate and since the plate which contains the slits is the reason behind splitting the domain waves we have to make sure that they are both synced very accurately when placed, meaning that these plates also must be placed in their positions at the same time for both chambers.

If the results were always the same for both particles that are shot in different chambers then this will be a proof of the concept.

Next phase

If the theory is confirmed to be correct then, we should go to the next phase doing this experiment syncing the plate placement at the same time, but with very small variation in timing when shooting the electrons using multi chambers, collecting these data will lead us to the timing of the loops then we can calculate it with time, for example if it turned out that the loop takes an hour to repeat, then if we shot a particle every hour it should end up in the same place exactly every-time, collecting more data in different locations will lead us to the equations that will tell us at any giving time in any specific location (in earth) where our particle will start riding the wave and therefore where exactly it will land in the detector.
« Last Edit: 01/07/2014 19:33:17 by aasimz »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #37 on: 24/06/2014 18:45:32 »
Fluid Tests Hint at Concrete Quantum Reality,



Unbelievable! this is published only today, and it supports the concept.

Quote from: simonsfoundation.org

Riding Waves
The idea that pilot waves might explain the peculiarities of particles dates back to the early days of quantum mechanics. The French physicist Louis de Broglie presented the earliest version of pilot-wave theory at the 1927 Solvay Conference in Brussels, a famous gathering of the founders of the field.



Quote from: simonsfoundation.org

A Quantum Drop
When a droplet bounces along the surface of a liquid toward a pair of openings in a barrier, it passes randomly through one opening or the other while its “pilot wave,” or the ripples on the liquid’s surface, passes through both. After many repeat runs, a quantum-like interference pattern appears in the distribution of droplet trajectories.
Now at last, pilot-wave theory may be experiencing a minor comeback — at least, among fluid dynamicists. “I wish that the people who were developing quantum mechanics at the beginning of last century had access to these experiments,” Milewski said. “Because then the whole history of quantum mechanics might be different.”




In many cases, when I come up with a new conclusion with my own critical thinking, it is always a matter of time before I discover it is either already confirmed by physicists, or it's already predicted or suggested by physicists.

Just like when I imagined the structure of these woven paths and was wondering if they are repeating or might have some kind of a loops, At that time, I had no clue that it was already predicted in the Loop quantum gravity Theory, I get shocked every time this happens to me, and I get these goosebumps, it feels stunning when I find such as the quoted statement using almost the same terminology that I earlier believed not ever in the history has been used to describe the same phenomenon in the universe.

As am no physicist, I don't know how seriously the suggested experiment would be considered by real physicists, but now I can feel like am alone here, as everybody stopped participating in building this theory to complete it, bringing it to life and later also officially adopt/participate in publishing the papers to the physical review letters, that way we can ensure that the experiment might get the deserved reaction and then see the light.

simonsfoundation.org | Fluid Tests Hint at Concrete Quantum Reality
« Last Edit: 15/02/2015 19:28:43 by aasimz »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #38 on: 15/07/2014 01:40:13 »
Why observation effect the results of the double slit experiment?


Well,
since this type of experiments has been applied on electrons, and we use photons for the observation process,

we can say that when electrons are free and when they absorb photons they will be effected by the electromagnetic force and settle in specific range of paths, and just like the ship example this will make the electrons temporarily less effected by the motion of the wave as the electromagnetic force will overrule.



*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #39 on: 07/08/2014 22:32:52 »
"Impossible" Space Engine Gets Pushback from Scientists



Another new discovery can be considered a valuable piece of evidence for the domain, a lot of things are pointing toward the existence of this logical domain, starting from space-time curvature, particles propagation through space as a wave, then the quantum entanglement and now this.

Quote from: Popular Mechanics by Kathryn Free

Even worse, says Corey Powell at Discover, is the NASA researchers' claim that the Cannae Drive "is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma." When Powell asked Caltech physicist Sean Carroll what quantum vacuum virtual plasma was, Carroll responded that there is no such thing.


Added:
Quote from:  Wired | 10 questions about Nasa's 'impossible' space drive answered

9. Why isn't there a simple explanation of how it's supposed to work without violating the laws of physics?

Different research groups all seem to have their own theories -- Shawyer's is based on relativity, the Chinese one is based on Maxwell's Law and Nasa is now talking about pushing against "quantum vacuum virtual particles" and saying that this is "similar to the way a naval submarine interacts with the water which surrounds it." The Nasa report deliberately avoids any theoretical discussion on this point, with good reason.

None of these explanations has gone unchallenged by theoreticians, and it might be fair to say that there is no accepted explanation as to how a close system of resonating microwaves can produce a thrust. There is no accepted theoretical explanation of how high-temperature superconductors work either, but because the effect has been replicated so many times, nobody doubts that it happens.

If the new drive results continue to be replicated, then theory may have to catch up.


Popular Mechanics | "Impossible" Space Engine Gets Pushback from Scientists
Tech Times | NASA tests Cannae Drive, impossible engine that might make deep space exploration possible
Wired | 10 questions about Nasa's 'impossible' space drive answered
« Last Edit: 15/02/2015 19:28:47 by aasimz »

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #40 on: 01/03/2015 15:25:41 »
Golden ratio offers unity of science



It seems like some scientists are in agreement with some of the ideas proposed here, or at least considering the possibility of similar concepts.

Quote from: Dailymail UK
The researchers suggest that the reason that this ratio is so ubiquitous is that it is actually a property of space-time.

Quote from:  University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
The researchers say that the “time has come to recognize that relativity and quantum theories can be integrated, and linked numerically to the value of a mathematical constant – whether in the context of space-time or biology”.

Dailymail UK | Is space-time shaped like a SPIRAL? Universe has a 'golden ratio' that keeps everything in order, researchers claim
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg | Golden ratio offers unity of science
South African Journal | Number theory and the unity of science
« Last Edit: 01/03/2015 19:45:19 by aasimz »

*

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #41 on: 03/03/2015 23:56:40 »
Look at this timeline charting over 200 years of discoveries.

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

Why do you think it took that long? You have to ask yourself this question and review the answer in light of the way you have come to your own conclusions

*

Offline aasimz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
    • View Profile
    • Twitter Page
Re: The Domain Theory
« Reply #42 on: 04/03/2015 18:55:58 »
Look at this timeline charting over 200 years of discoveries.

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

Why do you think it took that long? You have to ask yourself this question and review the answer in light of the way you have come to your own conclusions

Thank you Jeffrey for involving in the discussion,

Before I respond to your gentle suggestion, I want to clarify again that I am considering my self as nothing, absolute zero, even smaller than the planck unit, when it comes to a comparison with those great scientists of all times, I am definitely considering a fair -and might be a big- possibility of everything in this theory to be simply WRONG.
I am certainly aware that this theory involves tons of speculations, and to be honest it makes me think sometimes that I might be really deluded by this paradigm surrounding me.

Now to your question, honestly I can't say for sure why, but I assume the reason behind that may be in a lot of variant factors, on top of that there was a reason in each specific case, in some cases the discovery was almost accidental like when they were actually looking for another particle, and in some other cases these scientists had some strong solid reasons to justify the prediction of the particle, like in the case of the neutron, the proton was discovered in 1919 by Mr. Rutherford, then in 1920 the neutron is predicted by the same person to explain the missing mass where he suggested that it should have a neutral electric charge, because the atom electric charge was already neutral considering the protons and electrons there, but someone else discovered it 12 years later!.

Also if I am remembering this right, when they have predicted the "electron antineutrino" it was due to the missing spin value in a beta decay.

- Now tell me Jeffery, I really want to learn and understand, if you can just answer me, why the beta decay is not considered a good reason at least to suggest (not yet to predict) that these dot particles have a sub-particle structure and they are actually made out of some other form of matter?
- How can a dot particle or a vibrating dot particle (string) splits to become two dot particles if it didn't have some sub-structure?
- What happen when an electron (open string) absorbs a photon (closed string) and where/how does it stay for the X time it was in there before it gets emitted again?

Also the proton and the neutron were considered dot particles, and we now know they are composed of another small dot particles.

I really don't understand why all these scientists are not considering that, there must be something that am missing something that I didn't comprehend through out my research.
« Last Edit: 04/03/2015 21:01:42 by aasimz »