Monday, December 31, 2012

Theories Based on Quantum Mechanics Have Reached Their Limits


We published a short video (http://youtu.be/q5pyRlqSbeE) and sent out a press release to illustrate how a simple particle is a complex structure, with mass surrounding the particle rather than being inside the particle.

That is why we have the mysteries of the quantum world: Uncertainty, dislocality, with both a particle and a wave behavior. Quantum mechanics based theories can hardly be on the right track of describing mass and are very far from incorporating gravity.


Albert Einstein stated that Quantum Mechanics could not be a complete theory, when introduced around 100 years ago. In the Theory of Something, we thank James Clerk Maxwell for completing classic electromagnetism 150 years ago. Electricity is Everything!

The previous blog entry, how I derived Newton’s fundamental physical laws, both F=ma and the gravity law, is still popular. Electricity is now the top law from which all other laws should be able to derive – Even Quantum Mechanics!

A Happy New Year, /G.D. Tosman

14 comments:

  1. I am very fond of your theory. You are definitely onto something here. I am certain that most of physics can be explained with electromagnetism, as you suggest.

    I will contact you on ordinary mail about my own theory, as I don't want to destroy your blog with my ideas. Congratulation on making a fine solution to physics.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Happy New Year!

    It is indeed a brave new world as the sky falls. Smoke and mirrors lets one survives in the shadows, but the light in us will lead us out from darkness.

    Questions: Why is your model of the Grid cubic and not a triangular prism? Why is your notion of God's particle cylindrical and not spherical?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Theoretically, at the fundamental level, I would say it is the X (the vector cross product) in the Equation of Everything (ToS 8.2) that makes magnetic force orthogonal to charge movement, that gives us the 3 dimensional space (via the Grid). And anything else than a cubic grid would be difficult to get together with the room we know. I tested (pen and paper) a lot of arrangements of the Grid structure before finding one that works, see ToS 3.1. However, on a larger scale, the Grid is not regular - It must consist of building block that does not have pure 90 degrees angles, even if they cubic inside.

      I don’t mean that the negtrino itself is exactly a cylinder, it must be rounded off, something between a cylinder and sphere. It must have rotating charge creating its strong magnetic field that is most efficient with a cylinder with its charge rotating in the cylinder wall. I made some calculations around this in ToS 8.2.2.

      It is quite interesting to find that electromagnetism even can describe the negtrino itself, both the strong force reach and the size as we know them (when making up atom cores), match the electromagnetic calculations.

      I am convinced that you make an electric finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) simulation software calculate the negtrino more exactly. MIT has developed such software – They could do it.

      Delete
    2. RE: Between a cylinder and a sphere....So might have we have an elliptical solid.

      Ramanujan's theta functions came from a dream with Namagiri drawing ellipses. Euler's structural equations relate to Ramanujan's thetas. The Negritinos could be ellptical nodes of structurally very stable grid rooms that are closer to triangular prisms than cubes. If you stack triangular prisms, magical shapes and numbers start to appear.

      Delete
  3. I couldn't find any contact data on this site, so I am pledging you here to review my theory at crestroyertheory.com

    Your understanding of electromagnetism is so much better than mine, as I am not a physicist, but rather a philosopher. You can watch my videopresentation in 25 minutes, and it will give you a hint on whether or not you would like to brainstorm with me.

    I think w are onto the same wild goose chase. I would love to hear back from you on ok@rstvproduktion.dk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, I am checking the theoryofsomething@gmail.com address as good as I can – it is coming in a lot, so sorry if I may not be able to catch up.

      I looked at the video at your site and found it a good collection of info and thoughts. Correct that energy of all universes is zero, but I am not into the more philosophical consciences universe.

      You mention on your site that “Einstein did in his older days, think that everything, including gravity, can be explained through electromagnetism.” Do you have a reference, a link where to read up on that?

      You mention on your site that “Einstein did in his older days, think that everything, including gravity, can be explained through electromagnetism.” Do you have a reference, a link where to read up on that?

      Delete
    2. Professor emeritus of physics at the University of Toronto John Moffat, was in direct communication with Einstein in his late life. John Moffat describes in his book “Reinventing Gravity”, how Einstein in the fifties attempted to construct a theory that unified gravity and Maxwells equations of electromagnetism.

      Einstein never succeeded in his ideas, but Moffat has continued in Einsteins footsteps, since the fifties. Moffat is not well known, but you should read his book, it is fascinating. I don't understand his theory, as I don't understand a lot of theories. You can read about him on

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Moffat_(physicist)

      So basically I agree with Mohammad Khan. A theory that includes general relativity is in my opinion a theory that is bound to fail. But as I said, i don't fully understand other theories and not even my own, at times.

      I think you did a great job on yours, and I am sure it is a better theory than the standard model and big bang including general relativity.

      Delete
    3. Yes, I know of and support Einstein’s efforts to unify electromagnetism and GR gravity (not based on quantum mechanics – a not complete theory as Einstein expressed it) during his last 35 years. From your site however, I thought you had a reference to that Einstein thought of placing electromagnetism above gravity (like in the ToS), but that does not really seem to be what you meant, or was it?

      I actually think GR (general relativity) gravity can be derived from electromagnetism and the ToS view of what gravity actually is (just reduced Grid density), but I don’t have the mathematical skills to do that (I derived Newton’s – long distance – gravity though in ToS 5.5.1). I am not sure there is an analytical solution and not sure that GR gravity is exact inside the Grid room border. There should be a small gravity discontinuity at the Grid room border that I don’t think is in Einstein’s advanced GR equations.

      Delete
  4. Anything that is consistent with space-time concept & Theories of Relativity cannot be correct as Einstein's theories of relativity have been shown to be incorrect and consequently openly challenged on the basis of published articles. Open challenge on World Science Database & General Science Journal.
    http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=6476&tab=2 and also on.
    http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4018
    Besides Stephen J. Crothers has shown "The Total Collapse of the Black Hole Theory"
    Transcript of this interview http://www.scribd.com/doc/115892163/The-Stephen-Crothers-Interview Stephen J. Crothers: Published Research
    Yes! mass is an electromagnetic phenomenon due to the interaction of magnetic matter & electric aether as described in the published articles Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe (www.indjst.org; March2012) & Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things & Living Things (www.indjst.org; Sep 2010)


    These publications are also available on www.gsjournal.net, www.wrldsci.org, viXra, Intellectual Archives & ResearchGate in my profile.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Through published scientific research articles it has been shown that space-time concept is fundamentally incorrect as such theories of relativity are baseless. It has been also shown that only time is relative & space is absolute & filled up with aether as such Maxwell's equations in the classical form are not valid. Thus the theory of something would require thorough remodelling to represent the physical reality as some concepts of the theory are rational.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The space-time concept that you claim to be incorrect is a bit vague to me (having only viewed your links above briefly though). With only electricity, we have only time, length (3 dimensions) and charge as fundamental qualities (no mass, no kg).

      Maxwell’s equations are mathematically equivalent with the “old school book equation“ in ToS 5.4.1 and describe the relations between time, length and charge, which should be the “space-time concept”. They are correct when the Grid (or aether) is in place and in balance and with the current value of the dark energy in space. In a gravity field, where the Grid density is reduced, speed of light is slowed down (Einstein’s general relativity describes this correctly), but that is NOT described by the mentioned equations.

      However, in ToS 8.2 I make an attempt to generalize the “old school book equation“ into the “Equation of Everything” by separating the constant speed of light Co from the variable speed of light C (just by adding the 3 red zeros, which does not destroy anything, at least). If that generalization is correct (not sure here, need help from better mathematicians, but it is more than a good hunch), the Equation of Everything would include the space-time concept, and which I believe is correctly described by Einstein’s GR math. (I am not sure that math is fully accurate inside the Grid Room border though.)

      Delete
  6. can TOS explain http://phys.org/news/2013-01-metal-surface-repel-electric.html sure hope :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting, but sorry to disappoint you here - Can't see an explanation directly anyway.

      Delete
    2. :(

      Hopefully the explanation exists somewhere. Or to paraphrase Feynman;

      "Your theory can be absolutely the most beautiful thing to behold, but if it does not match experiment, it has failed."

      Delete

Real Time Web Analytics