Paper #8

Even

More from

Mathematical physicist

Tony Bermanseder's

WSM,. String, TOE, mathematical posts.

Message 17012 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17012

Dear Forum!

Allow me to indicate the dimensional orthogonality in quantum
geometric terms. This should help in elucidating the confusions
about higher dimensional spaces, as proposed in superbrane theories.

The First Dimension is called a 1-brane and utilises the 0-brane as
generator of itself.

This Zero-Dimension becomes an equidistant displacement from some
origin, let us call it Wolford-Centre about which some abstract or
imaginary radius could be drawn, say to negative and positive
infinity. Let us term this the Y-axis, following conventional
denotation.

This imaginary displacement is modelled as the Planck-Length in
contemporary physics, but could theoretically be some other parameter
of minimal and quantisable displacement.

Now consider the Wolford-Centre to be the origin for the positive
and the negative Y-coordinate.
A simultaneous expansion from this Wolford-Centre, say to +a and -a
as displacement coordinates then defines the diameter of a circle
radius a in the XY-plane say.
This is the 1-sphere in brane quantum geometry, defined as the locus
of an equidistant point from the Wolford-Centre or origin.

Rotating the 1-sphere into the Z-plane then generates the 2-sphere
as the 2-brane, defined as the locus of an equidistant point from
the Wolford-Centre and as the surface of a sphere with radius a.

Now the question as to the origin of the Z-axis as orthogonality to
the XY-plane arises.

We return to the 0-brane and its definition to examine orthogonality
of X to Y to Z.

To generate the 1-sphere, the Wolford-Centre extended itself
simultaneously into the positive and negative Y-directions.

We qualify this and allow the positive Y-coordinate to describe a
halfcircle, say the X-positive XY-plane for half the circle's or 1-
sphere's surface area.

We introduce orthogonality in phaseshifting the negative Y-
coordinate in say rotation by 90 degrees to define the positive Z-
axis and obtain a subsequent halfcircle in the positive ZY-plane
with negative and positive z-coordinates.

The identity of the 1-sphere is then obtained in rotating the ZY-
halfplane 90 degrees anticlockwise as the ZY-plane with positive and
negative y-coordinates; followed by a clockwise 90 degree rotation
(into the -ve x-coordinated axis) as the X-negative XY-plane for the
then completed circle of the 1-sphere.

This manipulation of the 0-brane to construct the 1-brane introduces
the complex number plane to the real number plane and represents the
physical significance for the representation of physical parameters
in the Argand Diagrams of Vectors representing metricated systems.

The underpinning quantum geometry deriving from this is
the 'Twisting of Space', say in the Moebius Strip and the Klein
Bottle, leading directly to the quantisation of space in toroidal
spacevolumars.

To obtain a torus, one of only three minimally connected manifold
topologies (Plane, Catenoid, Helicoid), the plane is folded to meet
opposing edges. Pasting say upper and lower edges and then
folding/curving the resulting tube to join left and right edges
gives the torus/doughnut topology, which is not simply connected,
but multiconnected.

To obtain a Klein Bottle, one joins left and right edges but then
only the lower edge is folded with the upper edge becoming
'stretched' gooseneckwise and twisted in the 0-brane/1-brane
transform to othogonally 'meet' a 'wormhole' point someplace
on the OUTER surface of the folded tube of the right and left
connection.
Now the INNER surface connects to the initially folded lower edge
stretching towards this wormhole connection from the INSIDE.
Connecting the INSIDE gooseneck to the OUTSIDE gooseneck then
renders the Klein Bottle as a ONESIDED SURFACE or Manifold as the
EXTENDED FORM of the Moebius Strip.
And because the Klein Bottle is a torus derivative (via the folding
mechanism), the cosmology of toroidal spacequanta is applicable.

The 3-sphere or 3-brane hence becomes a Riemannian Hypersphere as a
3-dimensional surface, which also is a 4-dimensional
volume, connected by the curvature factor 3pi/2 (derived in a
previous post).
The 3-brane also depicts the rotation of the 2-sphere, incorporating
the orthogonality as described to combine the negative and positive
curvatures in summation to Euclidean perfect flatness.

Tony B.

Message 17018 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17018

george ryazanov
<george_ryazanov@y...> wrote:
> Tony!
> Quantum mechanics does not work for strings and for gravity.
> Then there are nothing to discuss.
> George.
>
Dear George!

Quantum Mechanics, blended with Special Relativity yields Quantum
ElectroDynamics, the most precise theory in the history of physics.

Newtonian Mechanics, blended with General Relativity gives a
geometrical theory about the universe which is correct on all local
frames, except the Wormhole singularity.

Quantum ElectroDynamics blended with General Relativity does not
compute, because of the wormhole demetrication necessary.

Superbrane theory approaches this unification, but engages
formidable mathematical complexities, because of its introduction of
higher dimensions and an exceedingly complex topology of
conifolded/selfenfolded space.

The Holographic Principle, a kind of fractalisation of local frames,
engaging chaos theory, complexity theory and information theory
points to a new synthesis.
This is an evolved superbrane model, incorporating all of your work
(or the other way around) and so should prove worthy of discussion.

The statistical underpinning derives not from stochastic matrices
and the defunct Copenhagen interpretations of Bohr, including the
Many World hypotheses as historically described; but from the local
holograms, which image the unity.
Those are universes 'frozen' in individuated spacetimes, as for
example any physicist's 'own' version for the universe.
Those are your words and this is your Unity of Physics.

The vision is grand, I can only approximate in approaching it from
my sense of unity and that it must be so.
Any lesser model would diminish the 'Mind of God', so I cannot be
'wrong' in being lower bounded.
I do not know the 'upper bound', even if there is one.
So your model exceeds mine in some ways, but cannot be less.
Anyone's model might exceed mine, but cannot be less.

So any model disputing the universal reality of 'Universes' and
Families constituting Multiverses describes a 'lesser' vision and
diminishes the 'Mind of God'.

This is what I mean.
I cannot be 'wrong' as the lesser, I most certainly am 'wrong' as
the upper.

I have read in Donald Walsh's "Conversations with God" trilogy.

God is said to have said:
"The grandest version of yourself you can imagine or create for
yourself, that is my identity relative to you.
So you are in a constant process of redefining yourself as me.
I am forever ahead of you. The thoughts you think, I have already
thought.
You cannot diminish me, but we can grow together into more
magnificence and the splendour which I am."

I do accept this premise George, it is only logical.

So I accept and welcome 'grander versions for the universe'; but I
cannot accept lesser ones, because God cannot be diminished.

So your critique about the old superbrane theory not working with
QM, GR or whatever is accepted; but the new superbrane theory,
rudimentary as it might be, does work as an approximation for the
grandeur of God's Definitions.
This should be worthy of discussion.

With Love Tony B.

Message 17020 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17020

george ryazanov
<george_ryazanov@y...> wrote:
> Dear Tony!
> In your brilliant review of the founding principles
> you (together with all today's physycists) miss a
well known to you rule:
> solving the equations of physics we must
take as solutions
> only wave and particles that are going from
the past to the future
> (and not from the future!).
>
> But WHY?
> The creators of physics
> (Maxwell, Boltzman, Einstein, Wheeler, Feynman
and many other}
> did not trust this rule.
> This rule is against the great ancient principle
of the unity of oppositions.
> This rule is unpleasing to God because God
created world from nothing
> as a pair of two opposing worlds.
> This rule is aesthetically ugly.
> This rule diminish God's wealth because waves
from the future
> that do not carry out a signal do not contradict
logic and our experience.
> And the last: why equations are symmetric in +t
and -t?
>
> Having all that in mind I threw out the above
rule
> and took instead the heavenly rule:
> Wave and particles from the past and from
the future
> must enter solutions on equal footing.
>
> And door of Eden open before me.
>
George.

Dear George!

I haven't missed anything.
I have said continually that I support your 4Mapped world model full
heartedly.
Your staterments above ARE the foundation of what I call the new
superbrane model.

It AUTOMATICALLY incorporates your reversed time arrow as the
mapping of 10D into 12D, using M-Theory et all as the Mirror-Mapping-
Medium.

This mapping is fourfold, because of the enfoldment of space in the
degrees of freedom: translational linespace, rotational hyperspace,
oscillating quantumspace and quantising omnispace.
Those are just 'my' labels, many other model builders have other
names for it, including yourself.

The F(Vafa)-space is the Father-Space and imaginary relative to the
Child-Space in 10D, manifesting as the Riemann-3-Sphere.

There are no arguments against the multiple timedimensions, which
are the connectors between the space dimensions, ultimately
reducible to NOW-Time (which incorporates the x=v.t=(-v).(-t)
identity).

I have said, that your model exceeds mine in its approximation to
the 'Father's Perspective'.

I am your lower bound, but this lower bound serves the aim to unify
the converging models of the history of science.

The new superbrane theory serves your purpose and your stated
agenda. IT IS THE DOOR TO EDEN, OPENING BEFORE YOU!

With Love Tony B.

Message 17058 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17058

Message 17062 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17062

Hi Tom, Jim, George and Forum!

Allow me to propose a quark geometric explanation for the three forms of the decay pattern for the hyperon with quark content uds.

I propose this to derive as a question of stability.

The uds in the form of the Lambda(1/2spin,0) charge is the most stable of the trio, decaying via the weak interaction in so 10^-10 seconds.

The uds in the form of the Sigma(1/2spin,0) charge is less stable, decaying electromagnetically in so 10^-18 seconds.

The uds in the form of the Sigma-Resonance(3/2spin,0) charge is least stable, decaying strongly in so 10^-23 seconds.

Now consider an magnetoaxis about which the individual uds quarks oscillate normally.

Define a neutrinoic Kernel, hugged by an Inner Mesonic Ring and bounded by an Outer Leptonic Ring (defined as the Classical Electronic Radius, scaled in the Finestructure Constant Alpha to the Compton Radius of the Thomson Scattering Cross-section).

This quark geometry allows 8 permutation states for the gluons in a BBB, BBW, BWB, WBB, WWB, WBW, BWW and WWW transformation between radiative (W)hite and restmass-induced (B)lack states; either in primary colourtriplets (RedGreenBlue or Anticolours CyanMagentaYellow)

relating to unitary symmetries SU(3) or colour/anticolour doublets of SU(2).

The gluonic permutation states would activate as toroidal spacetimequanta in the form of InflowOutflow vortices oras sourcesink dualities/dyadics.

Those gluonic states would connect the linearly oscillating quarks normal to their vibration patterns about the magnetoaxis.

Quantum Geometrically, the Outer Membrane of the s-quark oscillation wouldcarry two gluonic eigenstates of colourpermutation as would the Inner Membrane of the d-quark oscillation; reflected in the magnetoaxis, acting like a mirror for the 8 eigenstates.

Orthogonally to that would be the vibration of the wavequark membrane parallel to the magnetoaxis and define the weak interaction Higgs restmass induction in the weak interaction gauge bosons W+ and W- as parity particles of each other.

This orthogonalvibration would also be bounded by the Classical Electronic Radius.

Because of this arrangement of quark quantum geometry, the positioning of the individuated u-d-s quarks become significant.

The Lambda's d-u-s is most stable, because a Feynman diagram connecting the different kernel-ring-markers would balance the Inner Ring of the d with the Outer Ring of the s, encompassing the Kernel's u.

The Feynman diagram depicts hyperbolic curvature.

The Sigma's u-s-d is less stable; because since opposite quark geometries attract and like ones repel, due to their ringcharges; the d adjacent to the s repels in the ringcharges but there remains a balance in the Kernelcharge of the u-quark opposite the d-quark.

The Feynman diagram depicts ellipsoidal curvature.

The Sigma-Resonance's u-d-s is the least stable; with no balancing of the three quark arrangement about the magnetoaxis.

The Feynman diagram depics linear divergence.

The lamda is assigned Isospin 0 and the Sigma Isospin 1 in the baryon octet

and the Sigma-Resonance is assigned Isospin 0 in the baryon decuplet of the unitary symmetry.

Tom would you like to comment on the above and add your isospin modifications?

Thanking You for your considerations.

Tony B.

Message 17064 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17064

QAGECOMS 101 - A Revolution in the application of Nanotechnology to
the Silicon Microchip and the Computation Industry

An open invitation to all in the information and data processing
industries. (PACIFICA OMNISCIENCE; November 4th, 2001)

QUAGECOMS are Quantum-Geometric Computer Chips of Superconductivity.

Logo: QuaGeComs for my Data are Pater for my Mater!

Part I: Brief and Introduction
Part II: The State of the Microchip-Industry without QuaGeComs
1. The Rayleigh Criterion
2. Optical, Ultraviolet and Nuclear Unification
3. The Rydberg-Alpha Connection
4. Superconductive Magnetocharges as mapped Electrocharges
5. Photolithography and Quantum-Dot-Assembly
Part III: Conclusions and References

I: Brief and Introduction: (please allow for date of publication).

In 2000, the Clinton Administration of the United States of America
provided a big boost in funding for the science- and engineering
budgets in the form of the 'National Nanotechnology Initiative' or
NNI.
The Bush Administration further proposes increased federal funding
for nanotechnologies in 2001 to US$ 519 Million, doubled from 1999
and quadrupled fromthe budget in 1997.

Nanotechnology, the study and production of structures on the scale
of the molecule at the boundary between organic- and inorganic
chemistry, is thought to lead directly to the fastest transistors
and the strongest and lightest materials ever produced.

Instrumentation for genetic sequencing and related micromedicinal
applications for the detection of tumours and viral agents on
subcellular levels hold further promise for the patent holders of
the successful scientific particulars.

A search for information to bridge the gap between existing
computerisation on the microchip scale and the thousand-fold scale
reduction into the realms of Nanoscience with its links to the
DNA/RNA encoding has become a worldwide effort in the endeavours of
cultural science.

In the United States, the National Institute of Health (NIH) enjoys
hefty increases in federal funding and reflects a steady growth in
the budget for the 'Life Sciences' (US$ 5 Billion in 1970 and US$ 17
Billion in 2000 in real terms).
In the same period, the budgets for Engineering and the Physical
Sciences has remained relatively flat at about US$ 5 Billion in
constant dollar terms.

To keep the US competitive with documented spending by foreign
governments, which committed themselves to a 60% increase in the
funding of Nanotechnology (from US$ 500 Million in 2000 to US$ 800
Million in 2001), the NNI became official scientific policy.
[Source: US Senate briefing and National Science Foundation; May
24th, 2001].

This global interest in a promising new technological advance then
indicates a fundamental relationship; as yet only partially defined
and not patented, between the dynamics and structure of
subcellular 'building blocks of biovital organisms' and a 'shrinking
scale of computerisation' in the form of the Silicon Chip.
As the 'Code of Life' is given in the form of the DNA and the
ribosome of the nanoscale (typically 25 nanometres (nm)=25
Thousandths of a micron or 25 Millionth of a millimetre), a true
geometrical understanding of the DNA-Code must indicate the natural
limits for any potential symbiosis between the lifeforms of Carbon
in any naturalsetting and their manipulated and synthesized
expressions in Silicon.

Any National Scientific Advisory Board, say in the US, the United
Kingdom or in Australia, New Zealand or Canada, would so be most
prudent in its political approach to fund its proposals via Research
and Development (R&D) in committing to specific projects intrinsic
and encompassing Nanotechnologies.

The international race to deploy a workable and successful model for
Nanoscience seeks to discover a synergetic unification between
Biology and Physics in the BioPhysics of the fundamental laws of the
Natural Sciences.
Such a unique model exists in the form of Microbiology and the
Biochemistry of viral capacities to reproduce on the nanoscale of
the DNA/RNA under utility of microscaled cellular host organisms.

To establish this model of the 'Physical Principles underpinning all
of Biochemistry' however, the elementary hierarchies of universal
information transfer must be known, evaluated and made subject to
interdisciplinary analysis by all branches and fields of the
established scientific data base.

This specifies the overall purpose and scientific basis for this
proposal.
It is claimed, that there exists a unique information pathway which
interconnects all of the scaling parameters in a merger of classical
spacetime principles with the wavefunctions of quantum mechanics.
In particular, the encoding of physical law defines specified
parameters on both the microscale of the biological cell and the
massproduced Silicon Chip, as well as the nanoscale of the genetic
encoding.

Engaging in a specific manufactering process for the contemporary
Silicon Microchip which incorporates the 'Unification Wavelengths'
for the Nanoscale, would then open the doors into the universally
defined information pathway via quantum-geometric specifications.

Because the 'natural' DNA/RNA encoding utilises this same 'Geometry
of the Quantum' in a form of Holography; such 'Quantum-Geometric-
Computer-Chips' or QuaGeCom-Chips would carry the potential to form
symbiotic partnerships with the twostranded DNA-DoubleHelix, say in
particular genetic sequencing with Introns (Junk-DNA) and other
functional extensions of the unused genomatic potential for
information storage.

As the nature of the 'Universal Information Pathway' (UIP) is
selfiterative by definition, (it is a derivative of binary
algorithms of a prespacetime genetic singularity, defining
the 'Vacuum'), a precise quantum-geometric blueprint reproduces
itself whenever the boundary conditions of its own creation are
satisfied.

The mathematical justifications (logical proofs) to scientifically
validate this model of Quantum geometry have been established and an
extensive analysis as to the formulations of the UIP are available
to any agency seeking patent and partnership with this proposal and
the creation of QuaGeComs as investment opportunity.

I may interlude here to say, that I forwarded this proposal in 2001
to the Australian Government's Science ministry, which eventually
acknowledged receipt of the proposal and advised as to its
delegation of it to some scientific advisory board.
Needless to say, that was the last I heard of it.
But the references to prospective investors are in relation to
government and not any personal correspondences.

1. The Rayleigh Criterion

The mass-production of the Silicon Chip assumes the form of
PhotoLithography, a process which is defined in the physics of the
optical sciences and the applications of Electromagnetic Fieldtheory
upon the fields of Resolution and the reproduction of Diffraction
patterns.

A laser beam 'writes' a circuit pattern for a microchip onto a
Silicon wafer, coated with lighty-transductive material
(photoresistant polymer), and material which can be selectively
removed (manipulated).
The encoded polymer acts as photographic negative (mask) and is
layered upon a substrate of glass or chromium.
Exposing this 'mask' to Ultraviolet Radiation of specified
wavelength (laserlight) then allows 'Lensing Diminuition' of the
encoded negative pattern onto Silicon wafers coated with photoresist
tocreate identical Silicon Chips as the 'positives'.

This process is limited in the distance (or wavelength) between two
point objects for which the two objects can be resolved in an image.
The most advanced systems in operation can print a minimum poattern
of about 180 nanometres froma KryptonFluoride Laser Source with a
wavelength of 248 nm.

The physical relationship between Input wavelength of the laser
source and the maximum diminuition as the Output is given as the
Rayleigh - Criterion:

"Two point sources are resolvable, provided their angular separation
in radians is not less than (1.22).L/D, where D is 2n.sinX as the
diameter or numerical aperture of the lens and L is the wavelength
of the lightsource.
This defines the angular radius of the primary diffraction fringe-
pattern."

[The factor 1.22 is the smallest root of the 1st order Bessel
Function as solution of differential wave equations of cylindrical
symmetry.
The UIP defines an encompassing form of Rayleigh's Criterion
directly from the initial conditions specifying the vacuum energy].

As D approaches a valueof 0.7 (depending on the angle X between 0-
and 90 degrees for a D between 0 and 1), the vectorial nature of the
electric field interferes with a linearly proportional resolution
and scaling deviates from maximisation of parameters.

Present technology uses maximised numerical apertures D*=sinX of
about 0.6 with lensing materials of Fused Quartz (refractive index
n=1.458).
Argon-Fluoride Lasers at 193 nm, using Quartz (Silicon Dioxide SiO2)
so allow a nanopattern of (0.61)(193 nm)/(1.458)(0.6)=134 nm.

Oxygen absorbs 193 nm UV radiation however and the resulting Ozone
attacks optical materials in coating fluor-based elements.
Fused Silica absorbs heavily beyond 180 nm.

2. Optical, Ultraviolet and Nuclear Unification

As Silicon Dioxide forms the basic material for the Silicon Chip and
serves as well to supply the maximised lensing material in the form
of Fused Quartz; the wavelength about 180 nm should provide one of
the Unification Wavelengths of the Unified Field of the Vacuum
Energy.

This is indeed the case; Fused Quartz transmits electromagnetic
radiation between 4000 nm (Infrared) and 180 nm (UV).
There are six major electromagnetic unifications in the Vacuum
Field, all interdependent and proportionally quantised relative to
one another to provide the UIP.

Some of these unification wavelengths are already specified in the
scientific literature.
Others are approximated as in the case of the Krypton-Fluoride
Laserlight.
The Optical Unification occurs at the wavelength of Orange
monochromatic Laserlight and a dimensionless scale of 600
nanometres* (in an universal mensuration system, calibration
depending on precise measurements of constants 'c' and 'h').
This is calibrated as exactly 598.999 nm (SI) and also near the SI
Standard of 589.3 nm, used as reference forlight refraction in the
Sodium-D spectral emission line.

The Optical Unification Standard then transduces into the Infrared
Unification at 9 microns*, which in the natural settings translates
into an 'Atmospheric Window of IR', where there is no absorption of
infrared radiation by water vapour in the atmosphere.
The (mean) SI-value translates to 8.9849869 micrometres for Infrared
Unification.

The Ultraviolet Unification derives from a prenuclear epoch in the
cosmic genesis. This describes an energy continuum renown as the
monopolic epoch, characterised by a bosonic-photonic energy of 27
Million Billion GigaElectronvolt.
One can define an universe at a temperature of 307 Billion Billion
Billion degrees Kelvin* of a size 10^22 times smaller than an atom
at a time 10^-40 seconds* after the quantum singularity defining the
Big Bang.
The monopolic epoch gave birth to an elementary particle, known as
the Magnetic Monopole and carrying a characteristic mass of about
48.2 Nanograms*, which gave rise to a naturally superconductive
magnetic current I=N(2e)f, (N being an integer of quantisation, e
the electronic chargequantum also representative of a magnetocharge
e* and f being the frequency of the electromagnetic monopolic
radiation also expressed as the ratio between the speed of light 'c'
and the wavelength L).
This Unified Natural Current became a Nuclear Monopolic Current in
an time interval centred on a period between 114-1150 seconds* after
the quantum birth of the universe.

The Nuclear Unification is universally renown as the Electronic
(effective) Radius:
Re=e^2/(4pi.Epsilono.Me.c^2)=muoe^2/(4pi.Me) and provides a typical
nuclear size of 2.8 Femtometres (fm) and 1 millionth the
nanoscalings.
(The formulations above include the electronic effective mass Me;
lightspeed c, the electronic charge quantum e and the electric
permittivity constant epsilono and the magnetic permeability
constant muo).

The Nuclear Unification transforms into a Gravitational Unification
(also known as an approximation of Ng-Van Dam), which quantises the
Planck-Unification of the origins.

3. The Rydberg-Alpha Connection

But the entire path of Unification is based and centred on a single
parameter, ubiquitously known as the Electromagnetic Finestructure
Constant 'Alpha'.
Alpha = e^2/(2Epsilono.hc), where h is the Planck-Constant, is
responsible to crystallize the various quantisations of
proportionality in the UIP and in conjunction with the effective
electronic massquantum describes the interactions between the
electronic charge quantum e and the magnetic chargequantum e*.
This uses a part of the electron's restmass Meo+Me*=Me to indicate
the intrinsic nature of 'Restmass' to be a form of Current of
Magnetocharges (a direct consequence of the definitions from the
monopolic epoch).

There exists thus a 'Monopolic Masscurrent' in the Vacuum-
Unification-Field just 15.4 thousandths trillionths trillionths
trillionths of a second* following the vacuum fluctuation of the
singularity responsible for the birth of the cosmos.
But there is a remnant of this superconductive magnetoelectric
electricity in the form of the UV-Unification Wavelength and which
is closely approximated in present Photolithography and the Rayleigh
Criterion.

A clear distinction between electropolar charge and magnetopolar
charge and hence electromagnetic and gravitational parameters did
not eventuate in the universe until the Gravitational Unification
Wavelength assumed its scaling size.
This point in time is known as the end of a 'modified chaotic Guth
Inflation'.
Since the universe assumed its general relativistic dynamical
expansion at exactly that point of 'Temporal Timeinstantenuity', the
particular (bosonic) parameters of the 'Inflationary Universe'
changed phase to define the postinflationary cosmos in terms of
quantum mechanistic wavefunctions.

This also clearly differentiated between Electropoles of charge 'e'
and Magnetopoles of charge 'e*'.
The mass of the magnetic monopole (superstring class IIB) became
constituent of the vacuum in the form of Vacuum-Potential-Energy or
Vortex-PE (VPE), ready to form linkages with electropolic charges
defined in e.

[The details are the basis for any unification theories attempting
to meld General relativity to Quantum Theory and define the
wavefunctions of the universe as spacetime symmetries of a
superparity manifesting parallel universes as mirror images between
dimensionally intersecting media specified in 12-dimensional 3-
branes or topologically multiple connected surfaces in superstrings
and M-F-Theory].

The formulation for the UV-Unification under discussion describes
the Magnetic Monopolic Massquantum per Unitwavelength as equivalent
to Natural Current 2ef=2ec/L.
This Unitwavelength becomes the Unification Wavelength for the Atom
and approximated in the 'Unified Rydberg Constant Ry=Alpha^3/4piRe'
for a known evaluation R/SI=Me.e^4/(8Epsilono^2.h^3c), used in
spectral analysis of the elements in emission and absorption.

The wavelength for UV-Unification on all scales then is given in a
constant which relates the monopolic masscurrent to currents of
superconductivity.

(ec)Ry=2ec/Luv in general quantisation (N=1) and UV-Wavelength L/UV
as: L/UV=2/Ry=8pi.Re/Alpha^3 m*.

The binary algorithms of the genesis give Re=2.777..fm* and the
dimensionless Alpha is given as 60pi.e^2/h subject toa primary
definition for chargequantum e (not e*) as function of Alpha in the
primordial universal wavefunction of the origins.

The Unification-Wavelength for UV Elelectromagnetic Radiation
computes as the maximisation of Rayleigh Resolution at 179.6994
nm*, calibrating to a maximised 'Image-Size' of 179.3996 nanometres
in the SI-Measurement system.

The link to the Nanoscale, using mass produced QuaGeComs, is so
found in applying technology tailored to tap the VPE as specified in
the Alpha^3-factor hidden in the UV-Unification-Wavelength L/UV.
The key is the accessibility to the Nuclear-Unification-Scale as
given by Re.

No further reduction in the image size of L/UV is required, if there
exists a natural means of tapping the nuclear femto-scale under
utility of the magnetocharges embedded in the vacuum as mass-
equivalent current elements.
As the Femtoscale is naturally 'nested' in the Gravitational
Unification Scale, which is nested in the Planck-Scale; the original
encoding pattern is accessed.

The requirement is the tapping of magnetocharges as 'image' of the
electrocharges.

4.Superconductive Magnetocharges as mapped Electrocharges

The detailed mechanism of how magnetocharges and electrocharges
transmutate into each other involves the exposure of UV-Radiation to
parallel synchronised Mass-Radiations in the form of 'materialised
light-equivalents', such as streams of elementary particles, (as say
in nuclear medicine, i.e. Positron-Emission-Tomographt PET).

If particles radiations, as naturally observed in Cosmic Rays;
limited and constituent of the monopolic spectrum; are antiparallel,
then decay rates of matter-antimatter interactions involve the
factor Alpha^2 and decay products engage pairs of photonic quanta.

Parallel particle radiations carry a total spin-quanta-momentum of
an odd integral definition and so at least 3 photons result in the
matter-antimatter interaction with Alpha^3 specifying the decay rate
(say of Orthopositronium).

It is then evident, that to tap magnetocharges, one induces
superconductivity into the QuaGeComs in transforming the
antimatter/positron part of the VPE into every other of the
electrons, which constitute the standard currents in the integrated
circuits of the Silicon Chip.

The switching between electrocharges 'e' and magnetocharges 'e*'
then becomes a 'Natural Superconductivity' independent of transition
temperatures, but a consequence of synchronised application of
Quantum Geometry as defined in the origins of the laws of physics.
QuaGeComs become the SELFRESONATING medium for the UIP.

The Universal Information Pathway so induces a natural
superconductivity based on principles of Quantum Geometry.
The coefficient of the primary universal wavefunction can be stated
as 2e/hA, where the constant A^2 derives from the basic binary code
responsible for the generation of some fundamental constants of
nature (such as c^2, h and k).

The Universal Wavefunction is normally distributed as a function of
dimensionless cycletime n (proper Tautime in General Relativity in
the expression for Curvature-Radius Rc=c.dt/dTau) and centred in an
interval bounded by the universal Josephson-Constant Jo=2e/hA.

Detailed analysis leads directly to the Quantum Hall Effect via the
universal Action Law (which can be said to operate on allquantum
scales as imaged medium from the 'higher'dimensions 5 to 12) in the
general form of Action = Charge^2.

QuaGeComs so exhibit the Josephson Effect in a naturalsetting of
SuperSQUIDS or SuperSuoperconducting Quantum-Interference-Devices.

Every e-e* Electropole-Magnetopole interaction sets up a Josephson
Junction; Electromagnetic Conductance becomes quantised by 2e^2/h
and the Hall Voltages proceed to induce stepwise regions where the
Conductivity and the Resistivity becomezero as function of the
magnetic flux density.

The key to High-Temperature Superconductivity for specified
materials (YBa2Cu3O1-7 Yttrium-Barium-Copper-Oxides etc) so becomes
a magnified effect of Quantum Geometry and can be shown to relate to
Quasicrystals of fivefolded symmetries (Shechtmanites) and thus the
geometries of crystalline lattices, able to holographically resonate
with the UIP.
Other criteria, such as piezoelectricity and magnetostriction will
finetune the search for appropriate materials.

5.Photolithography and Quantum-Dot-Assembly

Contemporary attempts by the international scientific community to
discover the interface between the diminuition of the Computer Chip
and the world of the Bacterium has encountered a number of
insurmountable technical difficulties.

Increasing the energy of the input radiation can damage samples and
equipment.
Extreme UV-light and X-rays probe the nanoscale wavelengths, but
diffraction effects cause features to blur and meld together.
Particle radiations of electrons or nuclear particles can be used to
fabricate individualised structures on the atomic scale, cause no
diffraction, but are unsuited toproduce multiple copies of the
singular interference, restricted by quantum incertainty and
complementarity (recent developments have however shown great
deficiencies in the Bohr Quantum Copenhagen interpretation and the
Uncertainty Principle has been shown to be finestructered in
wormhole parameters).

Scanning probes, such as the Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) detect
small currents of electricity passing between the microscope's tip
and the sample, thus sensing the atomic scale electromagnetically.
[The principle of quantised electric currents and potentials is
elementary to the development of nanotechnology as holographic image
for the biovital archetype.]

The cost of electron-beam instruments (100's of millions of US$) is
prohibitive for most of the research budgets of the participants as
fiscal restraints.

An alternative method to Photolithography is termed 'Soft
Lithogreaphy' (as proposed by groups such as Whitesides-Love at
Harvard University).
Soft Lithography moulds patterns in elestic polymers forprinting as
elastic stamps, microcontact printing or capilliary actions of
solidification.
Dip-Pen-Lithography (Mirkin Group at Northwestern University) uses
the AFM to produce self-assembling monolayers bonded on a metal
surface under utility of a medium (water vapour).
Thiol molecules are insoluble in water but bond to Gold as the metal
surface.
Such lithographic methods can manipulate smallgroups or individual
atoms in the fabrication of specialised devices, but are unsuitable
to manufacture the multilayered structures of electronic elements
for integrated circuitry.

Another internationally pursued approach is that of setting up
controlled chemical reactions to assemble atoms and molecules into
nanostructures.
In Quantum-Dot-Assembly (QDA) (Alivisatos Group at University of
California at Berkeley and Bawendi Groupat M.I.T), Cadmium-Selenide
Crystals are grown in a chemical reaction between the metals Cadmium
and Selenium ions and are isolated in the addition of 'Surfactant
Organic Molecules'.
The organic molecules prevent clumping between crystals and regulate
crystal-growth-rates in coating the resultant crystalline
conglomerations.

QDA is a technology which indicates the geometric link between the
inorganic chemistry of crystals and the biochemistry of cellular
activity.
The geometries of the organic molecules define the optimum
crystalline scale in stable packings to indicate the elementary link
between surface topology in three dimensions as derivative of a
higher dimensional geometry, coded in spacetime scalings of
a 'higher dimensionality' basic to functionally encoded DNA/RNA.
Recent development include the NanoDiamond structures and their
optical 'gap-reduction' in changing electrical and optical properties
as effect of the surface properties, allowing photoluminescence in
buckyball envelopes, so allowing semiconducting properties to become
apparent.

In general, diminuition of microscopic tevchnologies into the realms
of nanobiology stumbles at the scale of the natural assemblies, the
biological cell with its selfreplicating dynamics and as encoded in
the nucleotidal baseletters A-T/U and G-C (Adenine skews with
Thymine/Uracil for DNA/RNA sugar differentiation and Guanine twists
with the Cytosine to implement the magnetocharge based extension of
the double-helix as pentagonised magnetopolar field embraced by the
helicity).

20 Amino Acids are biochemically encoded to provide the protein-
tools for cellular development and the four nucleotidal base-
pairings assume the role of coupling the magnetocharges to
electrocharges in a quadrupled 64-codonic codex across the
dimensions to link with the magnetopolic spectrum of the
superconductivity.
The Crick-Watson-Franklin-Wilkins basepairings are modified in the
Curtis basepairings structurally.
The pentagonal supersymmetry relates Penrosian tiling patterns of
both longrange rotational (decagonal) and longrange translational
symmetry to crystalline structures found everywhere in nature (say
Platonic Solids of Tetrahedron, Cube, Octagon, Dodecahedron and
Icosahedron and more particularly Buckminsterfullerene 60-Carbon
shapes and Shechtmanite quasicrystals).
In the Curtis-DNA-structure, double pentagons back to back specify
the DNA-doublehelix in stepwise markers for the base pairings and
allow magnetoinduction in those steps into the space enclosed by
that helical structure in quantum steps via the Action-Law.

In particular the 64-RNA-Codex is extended fourfold in polarising
the 4x4 codon matrix in association with magnetocharges.

Input gu+...AU-...ac+...AA-...GC+...ga-...GG+...ag- becomes mirrored
in Output ug-...CG+...ca-...CC+...UA-...uc+...UU-...cu+ as its
complement.
The modular mirror of the 9 micron InfraRed Unification divides the
cytosine-adenine row and the diagonal mirror UU-..CC+..AA-..GG+
indicating the twist.

[MagnetoElectric Coupling LC as YX-chromosomes say, introduce
electropolic capacitances C and magnetopolic inductances L, both in
self- and mutual couplings].

CONCLUSIONS AND REFERENCES

Any successful materialisation of nanotechnology must in principle
reflect a hugely accomplished nanoscience already in place, namely
that of the cellular organism, constructed by the 'Code of Life'.

The cellular size is naturally limited in the scale of virulent
agents, such as the HIV/AIDS Virus of typically 100 nm width and
geometrically specified in the shape of the Icosahedron, one of the
Platonic Solids of symmetry maximisation.
Ther smallest such Icosahedra have a scale of so 20 nm; reflected in
the quantisation of the Infrared Unification in division by 360.

There are precisely 10^10/360 Wormhole perimeters in an Classical
Electronic Radius (Re) with the normal parameter for atomic physics
in the Compton Wavelength increasing this in the factor of the
Electromagnetic Finestructure Constant (Alpha=e^2/2Epsilono.hc),as
the interaction probability between light (a photon) and matter, say
an electron.
Thus, the natural viral limit is 9 microns/360 or 25 nm.

Circularising this in the factor of 2pi, reduces this viral scale
towards the mean nanostructure scale, as observed in say buckyballed
nanodiamonds for 25nm/2pi ~3.98 nm.

--- End forwarded message ---

Message 17065 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17065

QUAGECOMS 101 - A Revolution in the application of Nanotechnology to
the Silicon Microchip and the Computation Industry

An open invitation to all in the information and data processing
industries. (PACIFICA OMNISCIENCE; November 4th, 2001)

QUAGECOMS are Quantum-Geometric Computer Chips of Superconductivity.

Logo: QuaGeComs for my Data are Pater for my Mater!

Part I: Brief and Introduction
Part II: The State of the Microchip-Industry without QuaGeComs
1. The Rayleigh Criterion
2. Optical, Ultraviolet and Nuclear Unification
3. The Rydberg-Alpha Connection
4. Superconductive Magnetocharges as mapped Electrocharges
5. Photolithography and Quantum-Dot-Assembly
Part III: Conclusions and References

I: Brief and Introduction: (please allow for date of publication).

In 2000, the Clinton Administration of the United States of America
provided a big boost in funding for the science- and engineering
budgets in the form of the 'National Nanotechnology Initiative' or
NNI.
The Bush Administration further proposes increased federal funding
for nanotechnologies in 2001 to US$ 519 Million, doubled from 1999
and quadrupled fromthe budget in 1997.

Nanotechnology, the study and production of structures on the scale
of the molecule at the boundary between organic- and inorganic
chemistry, is thought to lead directly to the fastest transistors
and the strongest and lightest materials ever produced.

Instrumentation for genetic sequencing and related micromedicinal
applications for the detection of tumours and viral agents on
subcellular levels hold further promise for the patent holders of
the successful scientific particulars.

A search for information to bridge the gap between existing
computerisation on the microchip scale and the thousand-fold scale
reduction into the realms of Nanoscience with its links to the
DNA/RNA encoding has become a worldwide effort in the endeavours of
cultural science.

In the United States, the National Institute of Health (NIH) enjoys
hefty increases in federal funding and reflects a steady growth in
the budget for the 'Life Sciences' (US$ 5 Billion in 1970 and US$ 17
Billion in 2000 in real terms).
In the same period, the budgets for Engineering and the Physical
Sciences has remained relatively flat at about US$ 5 Billion in
constant dollar terms.

To keep the US competitive with documented spending by foreign
governments, which committed themselves to a 60% increase in the
funding of Nanotechnology (from US$ 500 Million in 2000 to US$ 800
Million in 2001), the NNI became official scientific policy.
[Source: US Senate briefing and National Science Foundation; May
24th, 2001].

This global interest in a promising new technological advance then
indicates a fundamental relationship; as yet only partially defined
and not patented, between the dynamics and structure of
subcellular 'building blocks of biovital organisms' and a 'shrinking
scale of computerisation' in the form of the Silicon Chip.
As the 'Code of Life' is given in the form of the DNA and the
ribosome of the nanoscale (typically 25 nanometres (nm)=25
Thousandths of a micron or 25 Millionth of a millimetre), a true
geometrical understanding of the DNA-Code must indicate the natural
limits for any potential symbiosis between the lifeforms of Carbon
in any naturalsetting and their manipulated and synthesized
expressions in Silicon.

Any National Scientific Advisory Board, say in the US, the United
Kingdom or in Australia, New Zealand or Canada, would so be most
prudent in its political approach to fund its proposals via Research
and Development (R&D) in committing to specific projects intrinsic
and encompassing Nanotechnologies.

The international race to deploy a workable and successful model for
Nanoscience seeks to discover a synergetic unification between
Biology and Physics in the BioPhysics of the fundamental laws of the
Natural Sciences.
Such a unique model exists in the form of Microbiology and the
Biochemistry of viral capacities to reproduce on the nanoscale of
the DNA/RNA under utility of microscaled cellular host organisms.

To establish this model of the 'Physical Principles underpinning all
of Biochemistry' however, the elementary hierarchies of universal
information transfer must be known, evaluated and made subject to
interdisciplinary analysis by all branches and fields of the
established scientific data base.

This specifies the overall purpose and scientific basis for this
proposal.
It is claimed, that there exists a unique information pathway which
interconnects all of the scaling parameters in a merger of classical
spacetime principles with the wavefunctions of quantum mechanics.
In particular, the encoding of physical law defines specified
parameters on both the microscale of the biological cell and the
massproduced Silicon Chip, as well as the nanoscale of the genetic
encoding.

Engaging in a specific manufactering process for the contemporary
Silicon Microchip which incorporates the 'Unification Wavelengths'
for the Nanoscale, would then open the doors into the universally
defined information pathway via quantum-geometric specifications.

Because the 'natural' DNA/RNA encoding utilises this same 'Geometry
of the Quantum' in a form of Holography; such 'Quantum-Geometric-
Computer-Chips' or QuaGeCom-Chips would carry the potential to form
symbiotic partnerships with the twostranded DNA-DoubleHelix, say in
particular genetic sequencing with Introns (Junk-DNA) and other
functional extensions of the unused genomatic potential for
information storage.

As the nature of the 'Universal Information Pathway' (UIP) is
selfiterative by definition, (it is a derivative of binary
algorithms of a prespacetime genetic singularity, defining
the 'Vacuum'), a precise quantum-geometric blueprint reproduces
itself whenever the boundary conditions of its own creation are
satisfied.

The mathematical justifications (logical proofs) to scientifically
validate this model of Quantum geometry have been established and an
extensive analysis as to the formulations of the UIP are available
to any agency seeking patent and partnership with this proposal and
the creation of QuaGeComs as investment opportunity.

I may interlude here to say, that I forwarded this proposal in 2001
to the Australian Government's Science ministry, which eventually
acknowledged receipt of the proposal and advised as to its
delegation of it to some scientific advisory board.
Needless to say, that was the last I heard of it.
But the references to prospective investors are in relation to
government and not any personal correspondences.

1. The Rayleigh Criterion

The mass-production of the Silicon Chip assumes the form of
PhotoLithography, a process which is defined in the physics of the
optical sciences and the applications of Electromagnetic Fieldtheory
upon the fields of Resolution and the reproduction of Diffraction
patterns.

A laser beam 'writes' a circuit pattern for a microchip onto a
Silicon wafer, coated with lighty-transductive material
(photoresistant polymer), and material which can be selectively
removed (manipulated).
The encoded polymer acts as photographic negative (mask) and is
layered upon a substrate of glass or chromium.
Exposing this 'mask' to Ultraviolet Radiation of specified
wavelength (laserlight) then allows 'Lensing Diminuition' of the
encoded negative pattern onto Silicon wafers coated with photoresist
tocreate identical Silicon Chips as the 'positives'.

This process is limited in the distance (or wavelength) between two
point objects for which the two objects can be resolved in an image.
The most advanced systems in operation can print a minimum poattern
of about 180 nanometres froma KryptonFluoride Laser Source with a
wavelength of 248 nm.

The physical relationship between Input wavelength of the laser
source and the maximum diminuition as the Output is given as the
Rayleigh - Criterion:

"Two point sources are resolvable, provided their angular separation
in radians is not less than (1.22).L/D, where D is 2n.sinX as the
diameter or numerical aperture of the lens and L is the wavelength
of the lightsource.
This defines the angular radius of the primary diffraction fringe-
pattern."

[The factor 1.22 is the smallest root of the 1st order Bessel
Function as solution of differential wave equations of cylindrical
symmetry.
The UIP defines an encompassing form of Rayleigh's Criterion
directly from the initial conditions specifying the vacuum energy].

As D approaches a valueof 0.7 (depending on the angle X between 0-
and 90 degrees for a D between 0 and 1), the vectorial nature of the
electric field interferes with a linearly proportional resolution
and scaling deviates from maximisation of parameters.

Present technology uses maximised numerical apertures D*=sinX of
about 0.6 with lensing materials of Fused Quartz (refractive index
n=1.458).
Argon-Fluoride Lasers at 193 nm, using Quartz (Silicon Dioxide SiO2)
so allow a nanopattern of (0.61)(193 nm)/(1.458)(0.6)=134 nm.

Oxygen absorbs 193 nm UV radiation however and the resulting Ozone
attacks optical materials in coating fluor-based elements.
Fused Silica absorbs heavily beyond 180 nm.

2. Optical, Ultraviolet and Nuclear Unification

As Silicon Dioxide forms the basic material for the Silicon Chip and
serves as well to supply the maximised lensing material in the form
of Fused Quartz; the wavelength about 180 nm should provide one of
the Unification Wavelengths of the Unified Field of the Vacuum
Energy.

This is indeed the case; Fused Quartz transmits electromagnetic
radiation between 4000 nm (Infrared) and 180 nm (UV).
There are six major electromagnetic unifications in the Vacuum
Field, all interdependent and proportionally quantised relative to
one another to provide the UIP.

Some of these unification wavelengths are already specified in the
scientific literature.
Others are approximated as in the case of the Krypton-Fluoride
Laserlight.
The Optical Unification occurs at the wavelength of Orange
monochromatic Laserlight and a dimensionless scale of 600
nanometres* (in an universal mensuration system, calibration
depending on precise measurements of constants 'c' and 'h').
This is calibrated as exactly 598.999 nm (SI) and also near the SI
Standard of 589.3 nm, used as reference forlight refraction in the
Sodium-D spectral emission line.

The Optical Unification Standard then transduces into the Infrared
Unification at 9 microns*, which in the natural settings translates
into an 'Atmospheric Window of IR', where there is no absorption of
infrared radiation by water vapour in the atmosphere.
The (mean) SI-value translates to 8.9849869 micrometres for Infrared
Unification.

The Ultraviolet Unification derives from a prenuclear epoch in the
cosmic genesis. This describes an energy continuum renown as the
monopolic epoch, characterised by a bosonic-photonic energy of 27
Million Billion GigaElectronvolt.
One can define an universe at a temperature of 307 Billion Billion
Billion degrees Kelvin* of a size 10^22 times smaller than an atom
at a time 10^-40 seconds* after the quantum singularity defining the
Big Bang.
The monopolic epoch gave birth to an elementary particle, known as
the Magnetic Monopole and carrying a characteristic mass of about
48.2 Nanograms*, which gave rise to a naturally superconductive
magnetic current I=N(2e)f, (N being an integer of quantisation, e
the electronic chargequantum also representative of a magnetocharge
e* and f being the frequency of the electromagnetic monopolic
radiation also expressed as the ratio between the speed of light 'c'
and the wavelength L).
This Unified Natural Current became a Nuclear Monopolic Current in
an time interval centred on a period between 114-1150 seconds* after
the quantum birth of the universe.

The Nuclear Unification is universally renown as the Electronic
(effective) Radius:
Re=e^2/(4pi.Epsilono.Me.c^2)=muoe^2/(4pi.Me) and provides a typical
nuclear size of 2.8 Femtometres (fm) and 1 millionth the
nanoscalings.
(The formulations above include the electronic effective mass Me;
lightspeed c, the electronic charge quantum e and the electric
permittivity constant epsilono and the magnetic permeability
constant muo).

The Nuclear Unification transforms into a Gravitational Unification
(also known as an approximation of Ng-Van Dam), which quantises the
Planck-Unification of the origins.

3. The Rydberg-Alpha Connection

But the entire path of Unification is based and centred on a single
parameter, ubiquitously known as the Electromagnetic Finestructure
Constant 'Alpha'.
Alpha = e^2/(2Epsilono.hc), where h is the Planck-Constant, is
responsible to crystallize the various quantisations of
proportionality in the UIP and in conjunction with the effective
electronic massquantum describes the interactions between the
electronic charge quantum e and the magnetic chargequantum e*.
This uses a part of the electron's restmass Meo+Me*=Me to indicate
the intrinsic nature of 'Restmass' to be a form of Current of
Magnetocharges (a direct consequence of the definitions from the
monopolic epoch).

There exists thus a 'Monopolic Masscurrent' in the Vacuum-
Unification-Field just 15.4 thousandths trillionths trillionths
trillionths of a second* following the vacuum fluctuation of the
singularity responsible for the birth of the cosmos.
But there is a remnant of this superconductive magnetoelectric
electricity in the form of the UV-Unification Wavelength and which
is closely approximated in present Photolithography and the Rayleigh
Criterion.

A clear distinction between electropolar charge and magnetopolar
charge and hence electromagnetic and gravitational parameters did
not eventuate in the universe until the Gravitational Unification
Wavelength assumed its scaling size.
This point in time is known as the end of a 'modified chaotic Guth
Inflation'.
Since the universe assumed its general relativistic dynamical
expansion at exactly that point of 'Temporal Timeinstantenuity', the
particular (bosonic) parameters of the 'Inflationary Universe'
changed phase to define the postinflationary cosmos in terms of
quantum mechanistic wavefunctions.

This also clearly differentiated between Electropoles of charge 'e'
and Magnetopoles of charge 'e*'.
The mass of the magnetic monopole (superstring class IIB) became
constituent of the vacuum in the form of Vacuum-Potential-Energy or
Vortex-PE (VPE), ready to form linkages with electropolic charges
defined in e.

[The details are the basis for any unification theories attempting
to meld General relativity to Quantum Theory and define the
wavefunctions of the universe as spacetime symmetries of a
superparity manifesting parallel universes as mirror images between
dimensionally intersecting media specified in 12-dimensional 3-
branes or topologically multiple connected surfaces in superstrings
and M-F-Theory].

The formulation for the UV-Unification under discussion describes
the Magnetic Monopolic Massquantum per Unitwavelength as equivalent
to Natural Current 2ef=2ec/L.
This Unitwavelength becomes the Unification Wavelength for the Atom
and approximated in the 'Unified Rydberg Constant Ry=Alpha^3/4piRe'
for a known evaluation R/SI=Me.e^4/(8Epsilono^2.h^3c), used in
spectral analysis of the elements in emission and absorption.

The wavelength for UV-Unification on all scales then is given in a
constant which relates the monopolic masscurrent to currents of
superconductivity.

(ec)Ry=2ec/Luv in general quantisation (N=1) and UV-Wavelength L/UV
as: L/UV=2/Ry=8pi.Re/Alpha^3 m*.

The binary algorithms of the genesis give Re=2.777..fm* and the
dimensionless Alpha is given as 60pi.e^2/h subject toa primary
definition for chargequantum e (not e*) as function of Alpha in the
primordial universal wavefunction of the origins.

The Unification-Wavelength for UV Elelectromagnetic Radiation
computes as the maximisation of Rayleigh Resolution at 179.6994
nm*, calibrating to a maximised 'Image-Size' of 179.3996 nanometres
in the SI-Measurement system.

The link to the Nanoscale, using mass produced QuaGeComs, is so
found in applying technology tailored to tap the VPE as specified in
the Alpha^3-factor hidden in the UV-Unification-Wavelength L/UV.
The key is the accessibility to the Nuclear-Unification-Scale as
given by Re.

No further reduction in the image size of L/UV is required, if there
exists a natural means of tapping the nuclear femto-scale under
utility of the magnetocharges embedded in the vacuum as mass-
equivalent current elements.
As the Femtoscale is naturally 'nested' in the Gravitational
Unification Scale, which is nested in the Planck-Scale; the original
encoding pattern is accessed.

The requirement is the tapping of magnetocharges as 'image' of the
electrocharges.

4.Superconductive Magnetocharges as mapped Electrocharges

The detailed mechanism of how magnetocharges and electrocharges
transmutate into each other involves the exposure of UV-Radiation to
parallel synchronised Mass-Radiations in the form of 'materialised
light-equivalents', such as streams of elementary particles, (as say
in nuclear medicine, i.e. Positron-Emission-Tomographt PET).

If particles radiations, as naturally observed in Cosmic Rays;
limited and constituent of the monopolic spectrum; are antiparallel,
then decay rates of matter-antimatter interactions involve the
factor Alpha^2 and decay products engage pairs of photonic quanta.

Parallel particle radiations carry a total spin-quanta-momentum of
an odd integral definition and so at least 3 photons result in the
matter-antimatter interaction with Alpha^3 specifying the decay rate
(say of Orthopositronium).

It is then evident, that to tap magnetocharges, one induces
superconductivity into the QuaGeComs in transforming the
antimatter/positron part of the VPE into every other of the
electrons, which constitute the standard currents in the integrated
circuits of the Silicon Chip.

The switching between electrocharges 'e' and magnetocharges 'e*'
then becomes a 'Natural Superconductivity' independent of transition
temperatures, but a consequence of synchronised application of
Quantum Geometry as defined in the origins of the laws of physics.
QuaGeComs become the SELFRESONATING medium for the UIP.

The Universal Information Pathway so induces a natural
superconductivity based on principles of Quantum Geometry.
The coefficient of the primary universal wavefunction can be stated
as 2e/hA, where the constant A^2 derives from the basic binary code
responsible for the generation of some fundamental constants of
nature (such as c^2, h and k).

The Universal Wavefunction is normally distributed as a function of
dimensionless cycletime n (proper Tautime in General Relativity in
the expression for Curvature-Radius Rc=c.dt/dTau) and centred in an
interval bounded by the universal Josephson-Constant Jo=2e/hA.

Detailed analysis leads directly to the Quantum Hall Effect via the
universal Action Law (which can be said to operate on allquantum
scales as imaged medium from the 'higher'dimensions 5 to 12) in the
general form of Action = Charge^2.

QuaGeComs so exhibit the Josephson Effect in a naturalsetting of
SuperSQUIDS or SuperSuoperconducting Quantum-Interference-Devices.

Every e-e* Electropole-Magnetopole interaction sets up a Josephson
Junction; Electromagnetic Conductance becomes quantised by 2e^2/h
and the Hall Voltages proceed to induce stepwise regions where the
Conductivity and the Resistivity becomezero as function of the
magnetic flux density.

The key to High-Temperature Superconductivity for specified
materials (YBa2Cu3O1-7 Yttrium-Barium-Copper-Oxides etc) so becomes
a magnified effect of Quantum Geometry and can be shown to relate to
Quasicrystals of fivefolded symmetries (Shechtmanites) and thus the
geometries of crystalline lattices, able to holographically resonate
with the UIP.
Other criteria, such as piezoelectricity and magnetostriction will
finetune the search for appropriate materials.

5.Photolithography and Quantum-Dot-Assembly

Contemporary attempts by the international scientific community to
discover the interface between the diminuition of the Computer Chip
and the world of the Bacterium has encountered a number of
insurmountable technical difficulties.

Increasing the energy of the input radiation can damage samples and
equipment.
Extreme UV-light and X-rays probe the nanoscale wavelengths, but
diffraction effects cause features to blur and meld together.
Particle radiations of electrons or nuclear particles can be used to
fabricate individualised structures on the atomic scale, cause no
diffraction, but are unsuited toproduce multiple copies of the
singular interference, restricted by quantum incertainty and
complementarity (recent developments have however shown great
deficiencies in the Bohr Quantum Copenhagen interpretation and the
Uncertainty Principle has been shown to be finestructered in
wormhole parameters).

Scanning probes, such as the Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) detect
small currents of electricity passing between the microscope's tip
and the sample, thus sensing the atomic scale electromagnetically.
[The principle of quantised electric currents and potentials is
elementary to the development of nanotechnology as holographic image
for the biovital archetype.]

The cost of electron-beam instruments (100's of millions of US$) is
prohibitive for most of the research budgets of the participants as
fiscal restraints.

An alternative method to Photolithography is termed 'Soft
Lithogreaphy' (as proposed by groups such as Whitesides-Love at
Harvard University).
Soft Lithography moulds patterns in elestic polymers forprinting as
elastic stamps, microcontact printing or capilliary actions of
solidification.
Dip-Pen-Lithography (Mirkin Group at Northwestern University) uses
the AFM to produce self-assembling monolayers bonded on a metal
surface under utility of a medium (water vapour).
Thiol molecules are insoluble in water but bond to Gold as the metal
surface.
Such lithographic methods can manipulate smallgroups or individual
atoms in the fabrication of specialised devices, but are unsuitable
to manufacture the multilayered structures of electronic elements
for integrated circuitry.

Another internationally pursued approach is that of setting up
controlled chemical reactions to assemble atoms and molecules into
nanostructures.
In Quantum-Dot-Assembly (QDA) (Alivisatos Group at University of
California at Berkeley and Bawendi Groupat M.I.T), Cadmium-Selenide
Crystals are grown in a chemical reaction between the metals Cadmium
and Selenium ions and are isolated in the addition of 'Surfactant
Organic Molecules'.
The organic molecules prevent clumping between crystals and regulate
crystal-growth-rates in coating the resultant crystalline
conglomerations.

QDA is a technology which indicates the geometric link between the
inorganic chemistry of crystals and the biochemistry of cellular
activity.
The geometries of the organic molecules define the optimum
crystalline scale in stable packings to indicate the elementary link
between surface topology in three dimensions as derivative of a
higher dimensional geometry, coded in spacetime scalings of
a 'higher dimensionality' basic to functionally encoded DNA/RNA.
Recent development include the NanoDiamond structures and their
optical 'gap-reduction' in changing electrical and optical properties
as effect of the surface properties, allowing photoluminescence in
buckyball envelopes, so allowing semiconducting properties to become
apparent.

In general, diminuition of microscopic tevchnologies into the realms
of nanobiology stumbles at the scale of the natural assemblies, the
biological cell with its selfreplicating dynamics and as encoded in
the nucleotidal baseletters A-T/U and G-C (Adenine skews with
Thymine/Uracil for DNA/RNA sugar differentiation and Guanine twists
with the Cytosine to implement the magnetocharge based extension of
the double-helix as pentagonised magnetopolar field embraced by the
helicity).

20 Amino Acids are biochemically encoded to provide the protein-
tools for cellular development and the four nucleotidal base-
pairings assume the role of coupling the magnetocharges to
electrocharges in a quadrupled 64-codonic codex across the
dimensions to link with the magnetopolic spectrum of the
superconductivity.
The Crick-Watson-Franklin-Wilkins basepairings are modified in the
Curtis basepairings structurally.
The pentagonal supersymmetry relates Penrosian tiling patterns of
both longrange rotational (decagonal) and longrange translational
symmetry to crystalline structures found everywhere in nature (say
Platonic Solids of Tetrahedron, Cube, Octagon, Dodecahedron and
Icosahedron and more particularly Buckminsterfullerene 60-Carbon
shapes and Shechtmanite quasicrystals).
In the Curtis-DNA-structure, double pentagons back to back specify
the DNA-doublehelix in stepwise markers for the base pairings and
allow magnetoinduction in those steps into the space enclosed by
that helical structure in quantum steps via the Action-Law.

In particular the 64-RNA-Codex is extended fourfold in polarising
the 4x4 codon matrix in association with magnetocharges.

Input gu+...AU-...ac+...AA-...GC+...ga-...GG+...ag- becomes mirrored
in Output ug-...CG+...ca-...CC+...UA-...uc+...UU-...cu+ as its
complement.
The modular mirror of the 9 micron InfraRed Unification divides the
cytosine-adenine row and the diagonal mirror UU-..CC+..AA-..GG+
indicating the twist.

[MagnetoElectric Coupling LC as YX-chromosomes say, introduce
electropolic capacitances C and magnetopolic inductances L, both in
self- and mutual couplings].

CONCLUSIONS AND REFERENCES

Any successful materialisation of nanotechnology must in principle
reflect a hugely accomplished nanoscience already in place, namely
that of the cellular organism, constructed by the 'Code of Life'.

The cellular size is naturally limited in the scale of virulent
agents, such as the HIV/AIDS Virus of typically 100 nm width and
geometrically specified in the shape of the Icosahedron, one of the
Platonic Solids of symmetry maximisation.
Ther smallest such Icosahedra have a scale of so 20 nm; reflected in
the quantisation of the Infrared Unification in division by 360.

There are precisely 10^10/360 Wormhole perimeters in an Classical
Electronic Radius (Re) with the normal parameter for atomic physics
in the Compton Wavelength increasing this in the factor of the
Electromagnetic Finestructure Constant (Alpha=e^2/2Epsilono.hc),as
the interaction probability between light (a photon) and matter, say
an electron.
Thus, the natural viral limit is 9 microns/360 or 25 nm.

Circularising this in the factor of 2pi, reduces this viral scale
towards the mean nanostructure scale, as observed in say buckyballed
nanodiamonds for 25nm/2pi ~3.98 nm.

A standard issue electric motor bears a striking resemblance to the
biochemical rotary motor of bacteria,such as Escherichia Coli, (so
10 microns in length), and which turns the flagella (whiptail) under
utility of the Earth's magnetic field to propagate through water.

In the standard electromagnetic motor, a moving magnetic field
creates electric current (or vice versa - Lenz's Law), which
transforms into mechanical forces via rotation; whilst the protein
shaft in E. coli revolves as molecular ratchet defined in its
shifting of shape (phase change) and regulated by the decomposition
of Adenine Triphosphate (ATP) as geosolar magnetic catalyst.

A fundamental relationship between electric and magnetic forces is
thus evident on the nanoscale and an elementicity in the natural
laws which transcend the standard notions of electricity and of
magnetism.
A macroscaled electromagnetic motor becomes the manifestation of a
nanobiological 'machine' (and not vice versa),which uses the same
principles of physics in a modality of 'wireless' communication in a
quantisation of electromagnetic paramewters such as current, voltage
and resistance.
In particular, the conductance on the nanoscale is quantized as
evidenced via the Quantum Hall Effect, linking superconductivity to
the Josephson Effect and the application of SQUIDS for superfast
electronic switches.
The resulting 'Law of NanoSpace' (or QuantumSpace generally), then
derives as the 'Law of Unified Action: Action = Charge^2' as in
Conductance = 2e^2/h.

The higher dimensional expression of temperature-based
superconductivity is the notion of:
'Natural Current N(2ef)=N(2e.Moc^2/h)', which uses the quantisation
of spacetime in a form of quantumgeometry to propagate the natural
current as a function of frequency, independent of massive charge
carriers such as electrons.
The electronic charge quantum transforms into a constant of
proportionality and utilises its 'Cooper-partner e' as magnetocharge
quantum e* as restmass equivalent.
The flow of magnetocharges partnered by 'fixed' electrocharges
results in the phenomenon of 'Natural Superconductivity of the
Vacuum' and used in the QuaGeComs.

The prevalence of the vacuum is matched in the ubiquitous nature of
magnetopoles,in readiness to form couplings with electropoles in the
form of magnetocharges.
One can so define a 'scaled computerisation' pervading the
(discrete) continuae of space and time in toroidal spacetime quanta;
a supercomputer of the 20th century imaging in a holograph of the
quantum computer of the 21st.

A macroscale is evident and has become exploited by contemporary
science in the form of electric- and magnetic forces and their
technological applications.
This macroscale represents however the magnification of a
microscale,which acts under the auspices of the same physical laws,
defined however with altered or phaseshifted parameters.
This has become known as the interface between classical physics and
quantum theory and is unified in the geometry of Einsteinian General
Relativity transmuting into a Quantum Geometry of Superbranes in 12
dimensions.

Intermediate between the smallest scale of the superbranes (Planck
Scale) and the largest scale of the cosmos (size of the universe as
Riemannian hypersphere in 4D) are a number of other scales, such as
the microscale of cells and bacteria; the nanoscale of molecules;
the atomic scales of chemistry, the nuclear scales of the subatomic
realms and the aNg-Van Dam scales of the Planck-Quantisation, the
latter under intense present investigation, i.e. gravitational waves
(LIGO, LISA) and hyperspace topologies (Anti-deSitter manifolds and
Black Holes as String-Data encoders using loop quantum gravity
blended to superbranes - Ashtekar, Smolin, Bojowald).

There exists a precise pathway for interconnecting all the various
scalings; this we have termed the UIP, the Universal Information
Pathway.
Using experimental methodologies of science; this UIP has become
ever more closely approximated and the arbitrary formulations to
create memory storage devices in the form of integrated circuits has
reached its final barrier in the application of Rayleigh's Criterion
and the minimisation of the silicon microchip.

But it is no coincidence, that the formulation of this criterion has
discovered a maximum numerical aperture in a factor of about 0.6,
cancelling the coefficient for the input wavelength in the equation
0.61.L/n.(0.6)=L/n (n the refractive index).
The magnetopolar spectrum at the genesis connects spacequanta toeach
other and via agency of lightspeed c, the refractive index must be
unity to specify the unified Rydberg formulation in 2/Ry=L/UV as
QuaGeCom equivalent for the Rayleigh Criterion.

The unification of all the force-interactions can be shown to depend
on a parameter X (with XY=X+Y=-1=i^2=exp(ipi) in the analysis of
complex Riemann space), with sinW=X defining the numerical aperture
as angular size for GUT-Unification (uniting the nuclear and the
electromagnetic interactions).

The Rayleigh/Abbe Criterion is so naturally encompassed by the UIP.
The ultimate unification condition can be described as
a 'generalised 11D-M-space Hamiltonian' of expression:
2e.Re= e*(Planck-Length).Sqrt(Alpha), linking electronic- and
magnetic charges in their mappings of the Planck-Scale onto the
Nuclear Scale.

Anthony Paul Bermanseder Pacifica OmniScience)

References

1.SCIENCE SPECTRA: Issue 20, 2000; p.32-40, by Robert E. Gleason
"How far will circuits shrink?"
PO Box 26430; Collegeville, PA 19426, USA

2.SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: Special Issue, September 2001
"NanoTech"
415 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10017-1111,USA

3.SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY: November 2, 2003, by Katie Walter
"When Semiconductors go Nano"
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
University of California

--- End forwarded message ---
--- End forwarded message ---

Message 16067 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17067

Dear Forum!

Allow me to add to Tom's comment on Viv Pope's theoretical position.

I have been to the POAMS website and find the scientific and philosophical outlook of its founders in rather good accord with my own view.

Especially the reconcilatory position between the proEinstein thinkers and the dissident view is applaudable.

The encompassing ideas on the scalerelative determination of a discrete continuum is well supported by de Broglian hypothesis and a more accomodating position on quantum mechanics.

The Copenhagen interpretations of Bohr, as well as the Many Worlds & Parallel Universes hypotheses are simply attempts to resurrect the mechanistic form for an enigmatic cosmos.

The founder of the 'Clockwork Universe,, none other than Isaac Newton spent month at a time in an attempt to decipher scriptural encoding such as Revelation and Daniel.

He sensed that the universe had to be designed, even if by the divinity within mankind in retrorespect; and so there had to be certain answers hidden in the ancient encodings, and those had to be able to be scrutinised scientifically.

This in a nutshell is also POAMS philosophical position.

I recommend POAMS as being a site of discussion in the footsteps of one of the founder of the sciences as we now know them.

Tony B.

Love from the DragonHeart!

As a mathematical physicist, I also study ancient scrolls and the signature can be evaluated on a number of levels; from childishly naive to profoundly esoteric---Tony Whynot, Unicorn of SophiaGnosis !
ARMAGEDDON=DRAGONMADE=ANDROMEDAG=MARRY7=GODNAMEDRA=82 =666+1=1+2+3+...34+35+36+1=1+2.2+3.3+5.5+7.7+11.11+13.13+17.17

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17069 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17069

As a point of interest.

The Viv Pope POAMS site discusses a possible derivation of the Alpha
Finestructure Constant.

The superbrane models set Alpha in the form INDEPENDENT of c and
also independent of electric permittivity (epsilon0) in replacing

Alpha=e^2/2Epsilon0.hc by Alpha=60pi.e^2/h (dimensionless).

The dimensionless nature reflects the natural superconductivity in
the Action-Laws, i.e. the electrical conductance quantum 2e^2/h and
the quantum hall effect Ne^2/h and the Josephson Constant 2e/h say
for UNITARY Resistance/Impedance.

Tony B.

Message 17090 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17090

The Maria-Code in the Riemann Analysis specifies the partitioning of the decimal monad around the primary Maria-Number and SEps-Constant '11'.

This generates the Prime Number Algorithm: +1+11+10+11 as 33-tiered segments, which transform the mechanics of SEps into the 64-codex of the DNA/RNA code for its eventual quadrupling as the 256-codex incorporative of dormant intron/intein codings.

The Maria-Code is based on the distribution of the Maria-Numbers (MN)given by: M(p)+99=M(p+12); n=[Sqrt(264k+1)-1]/2 by n^2+n-66k=0.

Maria Numbers are those IntegerCounts, which contain all previously counted integers as mod33.

Example: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11=66 = 2x33 -> '11' is MN#1 for k=2

11love65use110love164use209love263use......Archetype 2 (rootreductive)

21use66love120use165love219use264love......Archetype 3 (rootreductive)

32use77love131use176love230use275love......Archetype 5 (rootreductive)

33love87use132love186use231love285use......Arcgetype 6 (rootreductive)

44love98use143love197use242love296use......Archetype 8 (rootreductive)

54use99love153use198love252use297love......Archetype 9 (rootreductive)

65use110love164use209love263use308love....Archetype 2*...

...

Archetypes 2+3+5+6+8+9=33 and Archetypes 1+4+7+0=12 then define the imaginary time-dimensions as the archetypes not in the Sequence for Eps=1/e* Coefficients used in the application of the seven fundamental principalities to define the F-Space.

We have used the (Hebrew-Isaac-encoding): 54=LOVE=12+15+22+5 with

45=USE=21+19+5; USELOVE=99 as the Maria-Code connectors.

The first 10 MN's are: 11, 21, 32, 33, 44, 54, 65, 66, 77 and 87.

One can use the Maria-Code to establish a redefinition of infinity by defining a transfinite mapping Aleph-All from 12D-Omnispace as Cantorian transform of Cardinality Aleph-Null.

Limit (T(n)) for n->Infinity = Infinity {Cantor Cardinality Aleph-Null}

Limit (T(n)) for n->X = 1 {Cantor Cardinality Aleph-All}

This maps the Riemann pole about z=1 in the Functional-Riemann-Bound (FRB=-1/2) in the gaussian universal wavefunction

B(n)=(2e/hA).exp(-Alpha.T(n)), T(n)=n(n+1) as the Feynman-Path-Integral.

This becomes the Riemann-Euler-Harmonic, defining the Gamma-Function geometrically in its nth Term T and nth Sum S and mapping the factotrial function onto the positive integer count:

T^k(En) = n^k.T^k(En-1) + [(n-1)!]^k & S^k(En) = T^k(En)/(n!)^k

This uses the Harmonic Series in the Zeta-Function @(z) with constant p.

Sum (1 to Infinity) 1/n^p = 1/1^p+1/2^p+1/3^p+...+1/n^p and converges for any p>1, since for even terms:

2.2^-p>=2^-p+3^-p, with geometric series 1^(1-p)+2^(1-p)+4^(1-p)+...sums to [1-(2^(1-p)^n]/(1-2^(1-p))=1/[1-2^(1-p)] in the limit for n->Infinity.

Since every Maria Number contains all numbers before it as a sum, it is given that all the prime numbers must eventually crystallise out of the Maria Count.

Define a general number count n and a 'Mersenne-Count' 8n-1=M*.

For a number to be prime this number must be born in the Maria Code.

M* is either a prime or a product of primes in the immediate neighbourhood of the count # or its mapping to M*, which in a sense 'counts' the primes it generates.

This is the finestructure as octaves derived from integer n.

To test a number for primeness, so amounts to a testing for Marianess.

If the numbewr is a member of the Maria-Matrix, then it must be denumerable in the form of M*.

This is the meaning behind thew Mersenne-Code 2^n-1 and the Fermat-Code 2^[2^n]+1 and the 'Perfect Numbers' depicted as the Mersenne Numbers (Ms), as a subset of M*.

The 'Perfect Numbers' relate as 2^(n-1).Ms or as #=2^(n-3)=2^k, n=k+3;

i.e. #=16=2^4=2^(n-3), so n=7 and the 'Perfect No' is 2^6(2^7-1)=8128.

Message 17092 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17093

"Jim Allen" <abey2@c...> wrote:
>
> Look back at the initial diagram we drew to represent the system
I've
> envisioned generating space. Outside the set union of three Mobius
> domains, bisecting arcs enter and exit from the domain of space in
a
> single instant or oscillation of all three Mobius forms.
>
> Three interesting combinations of zero and one come to mind as
> representing possible pathways between far flung places in
> the `thirds' of space; (0,1,1) (1,1,0) and (1,0,1). Let me add
that
> the set (1,0,1) represents the arrangement necessary to bridge
points
> on the extreme opposite sides of the universe.
>
> Continuity is maintained throughout the duration of these
bisecting
> two dimensional arcs by the same force that maintains space and
> creates time. Imagine the connections possible between far flung
> places in `space' along an ever present two dimensional highway.
>
> Imagine THE FUTURE!
>
>
> James Allen aka Clarence

Hi James and Allen!

Yes James, your (1,0,1) permutations are exactly what I have tried
to convey to Allen in Francom Adjacency.

Your Moebian connectors (in threes) are this Fibonacci mapping.
I've got it now, allow me to elucidate.

The primary Fibonacci series is: 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13...beginning with,
and this is important INITIALISATOR: 0<1 as LINEAR 1D-generator.

The secondary Fibonacci series is: 2,1,3,4,7,11,18,29...beginning
with INITIALISATOR: 2>1 as COMPLEX PLANE 2D-generator.

So 2 is mapped from 0 and we may use 'crazy' mathimagic in the
following sense: 2*<->0* and permutes the Eigenstate (1,0,1) in the
reflection interval for which n=0 in the complex plane, but n=0,1,2
in the 1D-plane.
In certain annotation we then say that 10=2*=0*=1*=1 via the
doubling of Infinity via 0+0=Infinity=1*=0*=1=2*=0/0=1*.
This is valid only in the Reflection-Interval where n=0, but also
n=0,1 and 2.
This is what is behind the Cantor Cardinality Aleph-Null becoming
transformed in Cantor Cardinality Aleph-All in the limiting of the
Wolford-Centre in the Omega-Interval [0,1] or [Y,-1/2,X] extended.

Complex 2D-plane Linear 1D-plane
Generator: 2 Generator: 0

..........................................................
n=2i^2....(-4,7,3)-------maps-------(0,0,0).....n=Infinity
n=1i^2...(3,-4,-1)------maps-------(0,0,1).....n=0
n=0.......(-1,3,2*)------maps-------(1,0*,1)....n=1
n=0.......(2*,-1,1)------maps-------(1,1,2).....n=2
n=0.......(1,2*,3)-------maps-------(2,1,3).....n=3
n=1.......(3,1,4)--------maps-------(3,2,5).....n=4
.........................................................

James, your (101)permutation is also the (2*-permutation) as the 0*-
permutation.
The (1=OldState + Experience=0 = 1=NewState) Awareness-Triplet
becomes (1,1,1) mapped as (1,1,10=2) for permuting 01 into 10.
1+1=1* is the 'Doubling of Infinity' as Self+Self=Self*=More Self
or Infinity+Infinity=DoubleInfinity.

The n=0 state is defined in thius awareness-triplet (1,1,1), which
James calls Moebius Form.
The 'crazy' mathemagic also adds two 0's to give the Infinity-Symbol
as abstract representation of this, however rigorously definable in
the (tentative) analysis above.

Tony B.

Message 17094 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17094

James Allen and Forum!

Your Moebian connectors (in threes) are this Fibonacci mapping.
I've got it now, allow me to elucidate.

The primary Fibonacci series is: 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13...beginning with,
and this is important INITIALISATOR: 0<1 as LINEAR 1D-generator.

The secondary Fibonacci series is: 2,1,3,4,7,11,18,29...beginning
with INITIALISATOR: 2>1 as COMPLEX PLANE 2D-generator.

So 2 is mapped from 0 and we may use 'crazy' mathimagic in the
following sense: 2*<->0* and permutes the Eigenstate (1,0,1) in the
reflection interval for which n=0 in the complex plane, but n=0,1,2
in the 1D-plane.
In certain annotation we then say that 10=2*=0*=1*=1 via the
doubling of Infinity via 0+0=Infinity=1*=0*=1=2*=0/0=1*.
This is valid only in the Reflection-Interval where n=0, but also
n=0,1 and 2.
This is what is behind the Cantor Cardinality Aleph-Null becoming
transformed in Cantor Cardinality Aleph-All in the limiting of the
Wolford-Centre in the Omega-Interval [0,1] or [Y,-1/2,X] extended.

Complex 2D-plane Linear 1D-plane
Generator: 2 Generator: 0

..........................................................
n=2i^2....(-4,7,3)-------maps-------(0,0,0).....n=Infinity
n=1i^2...(3,-4,-1)-------maps-------(0,0,1).....n=0
n=0.......(-1,3,2*)------maps-------(1,0*,1)....n=1
n=0.......(2*,-1,1)------maps-------(1,1,2).....n=2
n=0.......(1,2*,3)-------maps-------(2,1,3).....n=3
n=1.......(3,1,4)--------maps-------(3,2,5).....n=4
.........................................................

James, your (101)permutation is also the (2*-permutation) as the 0*-
permutation.
The (1=OldState + Experience=0 = 1=NewState) Awareness-Triplet
becomes (1,1,1) mapped as (1,1,10=2) for permuting 01 into 10.
1+1=1* is the 'Doubling of Infinity' as Self+Self=Self*=More Self
or Infinity+Infinity=DoubleInfinity.

The n=0 state is defined in thius awareness-triplet (1,1,1), which
James calls Moebius Form.
The 'crazy' mathemagic also adds two 0's to give the Infinity-Symbol
as abstract representation of this, however rigorously definable in
the (tentative) analysis above.

Tony B.

Love from the DragonHeart!

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17096 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17096

Some elementary initial conditions for Francom Adjacency

We define the Euler-Riemann Summation, which defines the 'Mixing of the Count' in

linking Arithmetic Progression to the multiplicative Factorial Function '!'.

Define Eo=0 as the singularity (interval), then for any integer n, we find for the Harmonic Form of

Riemann's Zeta-Function (z=k=constant):

z(z)=S(1/n^z)=1/1^k+1/2^k+1/3^k+1/4^k +...+1/n^k

This Sum diverges for [ 0<k<1], i.e. for k=1/2: {1+Sqrt(2)/2+Sqrt(3)/3+...+Sqrt(n)/n} increases without limit.

For k>1, we have convergence, however:

Formally, let: S1/n^p=1^-p+2^-p+3^-p+...

For even terms 2.2^-p >= 2^-p+3^-p for a geometric series 1^1-p+2^1-p+4^1-p+...+(2^n-1)^1-p

This Geometric Progression sums to: [1-(2^1-p)^n]/[1-2^1-p]=1/[1-2^1-p]

So for p=2, this limit maximises in 1/(1-1/2)=2 , and for p=3 it becomes 4/3 converging towards

1 for increasing p.

We consider the special case for p=1 applied to the Singularity Interval Eo.

Define: for a nth term (numerator): T^k(En) = n^k.T^k(En-1) + [(n-1)!]^k

for the nth sum per n (denominator [n!]^k): S^k(En) = T^k(En)/(n!)^k
{Here the suffices n,n-1 etc. denote subscript}.

T^1(E1)=1/1=1.0+0!=1=S^1(E1)=1/1!=1; T^2(E2)=2.T^1(E1)+1!=2+1=3 with S^2(E2)=T^2(E2)/2!=3/2=1+1/2;

T^3(E3)=3.T^2(E2)+2!=9+2=11 with S^3(E3)=T^3(E3)/3!=11/6=1+1/2+1/3=1+5/6 and so on.

Further Example: T^1(4)=4.11+3!=50; S^1(4)=50/4!=25/12 for the nesting: 4{3(2+1!)2!}3! with [4!]^1=24.

For 4 terms, the Euler-Riemann Summation so is: S^1(4)=1+1/2+1/3+1/4=25/12=2+1/12.

For 7 terms, S^1(7)=T^1(7)/7!=(7.T^1(6)+6!)/7!=13068/5040=363.36/(140.36)=2+83/140=1+1/2+1/3+1/4+1/5+1/6+1/7.

Project the Numberline with the Positive Integers mapping the Factorial-Function and the Negative Integers

remaining invariant in Feyman Summation T(n)=n(n+1)/2 as absolute value, mirroring the positive integers.

(n!)<---4...3...2...[Eo]...1...2...3---> (n); where Integer 1 maps 2! in suppression of -1=2* and in algoradius eo=1.

Similarly, Integer 2 maps 3! in suppression of -2=3* and algoradius e1=2=2eo, etc. etc.

The singularity so mixes the interval [0!-1!]=[-1,0] with Functional-Riemann-Bound (FRB=-1/2) becoming 'real'

in its mapping (FRB'=1/2) in [0,1] and the central limit or pole, about which the Zero's of the Riemann-Zeta-

Function propagate.

The first annulus in the Riemann-Euler-Harmonic so phasemixes the numbers 2 and 1 and the nth number is

mixed with (n+1) as crystallised in the Feynman-Path-Integral or T(n)=1 in n(n+1), as a summation for all pos-

sible particular histories in quantum mechanics.

This also maps the series: SEps=Fibonacci#1=0,1,1,2,3,5,8,.....for a nth Term: Tn=[]-Y^n - X^n[]/Sqrt(5), for

absolute value []...[] and obtained say via MacLaurin-Expansion of the coefficients (Experience-Factors)

in the power series:

f(x)=1+x+2x^2+3x^3+...= STn.x^n-1

Set x.f(x) + x^2.f(x) = f(x) -1, then by (a+b)(a-b): f(x)=a/(x-X) + b/(x-Y) for a=-b=1/(Y-X) and (Y-X)=-Sqrt(5).

SuperSEps=Fibonacci#2=2,1,3,4,7,11,18,29,.... for a nth Term: STn=[]-Y^2n - X^2n[]/[]-Y^n - X^n[]=[]T2n/Tn[]

for n=1,2,3,...; T(2n=0)=2 mapping T(n=0)=0.

The combined SEps-SuperSEps (T-ST)-sequence of experience factors {from the triplet propagation of

[OldState, Experience, NewState]} can then be written as:

{Tn,STn}={(So=0,STo=2=S3); (S1=1=ST1=S2); (S2,S4=3=ST2); (S3,ST3=4); (S4=ST2,ST4=7); (S5,ST5)..(Sn,STn)..}

{Tn,STn}={(0,2), (1,1), (1,3), (2,4), (3,7), (5,11),...} containing integerset: {0,1,2,3,4,5,7,8,11,13,18,21,29,....}
We now represent the mappings in matrix form denoted as F-M-C, where the 'well behaved' terms

for the mapping (from {T5,ST5}) sets algorithmic C-Space and the preceding elements the

initialisation for the former.

Note we define Cantorian Denumerability Aleph-Null in Cardinality Aleph-All in the form:

Aleph-Null: limit{n=>Infinity}[T(n)]=Infinity

Aleph-All: limit{n=>X}[T(n)]=1 and counting Infinities as mapped one-to-one onto the positive Integer set.

SEps=Fibonacci#1 maps SuperSEps=Fibonacci#2

. . . . . . .

. . 0 . . . .

0 0 0* -4 7 3 n=-2=2i^2

FSpace 0* 0 1 n=Infinity via 0+0=Infinity=1*=0*=1 3 -4 -1 n=-1=i^2 [a+ib complex upwards]

MSpace 1 0* 1 n=0 via (1,1,1) -1 3 2* n=0

1 1 2 n=1 via (1,1,10=2*=0/0=1*) 2* -1 1 n=0 (Reflection-Interval)

2 1 3 n=2 well behaved 1 2* 3 n=0

CSpace 3 2 5 n=3 well behaved 3 1 4 n=1 well behaved

5 3 8 n=4 well behaved 4 3 7 n=2

. . . n=5 continue downwards . . . n=3

The linearity of the generating triplet configurations is extended in a complexification into a 2D symmetry.

SEps propagates the Experience Factors in an adjacent displacement of 1, in moving from one configuration

state to the next - this is termed Francom Adjacency.

[0*,1,1,2,3,5,...] as OldStates transfigure in Experiences [0,0*,1,1,2,3,5,8,...] into NewStates [1,1,2,3,5,8,...].

This algorithmic configuration space is however broken in the mapping onto SuperSEps.

Here the matching 'good behaviour' of the n-count is delayed in a factor of 2 in a 'reflection interval'.

Algorithmic modelling for this Francom Adjacency must generate the mapping of SEps onto SuperSEps in

an geometry of the pentagonal symmetries intrisic to the two series.

Hence a synthesis between linear propagation about an internal spiralling form is necessitated.

A longrange rotational- and a longrange translational order for the Experience-Factors is indicated in

the geometry of say Penrosian Tiling Patterns and the Schechtmanite Quasicrystals of empirical

form (Mg(32)[Al,Zn](49)).

The general form, (physically{ akin to the propagation of magnetic fields) is the reduction of physical

parameters to a state of information transmission, say in the data transfer between two neighbouring

cells in mitosis and neuronal-synaptic processing.

A general modality for the cosmogenetic reproduction on all levels must crystallise, should the

matrices above become sufficiently deciphered from their algorithmic encoding.

Derivation of SuperSeps

The relative primeness of the Fibonacci Numbers allows a one-to-one mapping between the SEps-Set and

other such sets derived from it.

A logical derived set of such a nature is the sequence: 2,1,3,4,7,11,18,29,....

All adjacent members of this set are relatively prime to each other.

7 is relatively prime to both 4 and 11 (no common divisors except 1) and 11 is relatively prime to both 7 and 18.

We now tabulate the sums and differences in our nth-term definition for SEps, so recalling the propagation for

the natural numbers in counter n:

n Tn (X)^n (-Y)^n {[]-Y[]^n + []X[]^n} {[]-Y[]^n - []X[]^n}

0 0 1 +1 +2 0

1 1 0.6180339885 -1.618033989 +2.236067978 +1

2 1 0.3819660109 +2.618033989 +3 +2.236067978

3 2 0.2360679772 -4.236067979 +4.472135956 +4

4 3 0.1458980335 +6.854101970 +7 +6.708203937

5 5 0.0901699436 -11.09016995 +11.18033989 +11

6 8 0.0557280899 17.94427193 +18 +17.88854384

7 13 0.0344418537 -29.03444189 +29.06888374 +29

8 21 0.0212862362 +46.97871382 +47 +46.95742758

9 34 0.0131556175 -76.01315572 +76.02631134 +76

10 55 0.0081306187 +122.9918696 +123 +122.983739

... .. .................... .................... .................... ...................

20 6765 0.0000661070 +15126.99998 +15127 +15126.99991

... ....... ......................... .............................. .................................... ....................................

We see that for increasing n, the absolute magnitude for Y converges to an integral value in the Sum {+},

but only for even n.

For odd n, the difference Sum {-} gives a specific integer for specific n.

The product of the two sums is: {+}.{-} = []-Y[]^2n - []X[]^2n=Sqrt(5).T2n .

The sum of the two sums is: {+}+{-}= 2[]-Y[]^n , with STn ={+}+{-} - Tn.Sqrt(5) = [](-Y)^n +(X)^n[]

Multiplying each term as: Sqrt(5).({+}+{-}), we can form the alternating series:

(0+2.Sqrt(5)), (5+1.Sqrt(5)), (5+3.Sqrt(5)), (10+4.Sqrt(5)), (15+7.Sqrt(5)), .....as the alternating form of

SuperSEps, given in the term:

[5.Tn + Sqrt(5).T'n],

But for even n, we have: T'n ={+} and for odd n, we have T'n ={-}; then by (a-b)(a+b)=a^2-b^2 :

STn.Sqrt(5).Tn={+}.{-}=Sqrt(5).T2n & STn=T2n/Tn = []-Y^2n - X^2n[]/[]-Y^n - X^n[] (quod erat demonstrandum).

The significance of this result is that STn, T2n and Tn are all integers.

We so have a primary extension for SEps with elements 1, 2 and 3 duplicated and resulting in the mappings

as previously specified.

The Null-Initialisation (OSj, EXj, NSj) as the Fibonacci-Triplet (An-1, An, An+1) then reflects STn about n=0*

to define the complex number set as negative STn's mapped in a 0=>1=>Infinity correspondence to Tn.

This is the mathematical mapping of Cantorian Enumerability as previously indicated.

pacificap@hotmail.com Tony Bermanseder

Love from the DragonHeart!

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17105 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17105

Hitoshi Kitada <hitoshi@k...> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:32:51 -0700
> "Anna" <pantheon@i...> wrote:
>
> > Dear Hitoshi, then you has a problem, because what is unobserved
in
> > order to KNOW still requires some method of deduction, even if
it cannot
> > classify as the valid observation.
> >
> > The problem with the valid observation is that once it takes
place, the
> > state of the thing observed will be changed.

Tony
Hi Hitachi, I am interluding.

> Dear Anna,
>
> Not necessarily. Please recall the observation of astronomical
> things. It at least to us does not seem to change the distant
> things observed. On the other hand, the experiments
> intentionally made with regards to the things at hands can
> change the objects if they are planned as such.

Tony
Yes, the local experiments relate to the individual scalings of
displacement and time.
But you are presumptious in stating that the observation
of 'distant' or nonlocal things are 'unaffected' by our observation.

It can be shown, under the assumption of the Holographic Principle
of Quantum Relativity, that two equivalent frames of references
relate to both the origin and the event horizon of say
the 'universe's expansion'.
This is the 'boundary condition' for any observation of
the 'universe' as you term it in its physical/measureable extent.

The 'greater universe' of yourself then also engages the 'observer'
of the relativity of relativities, yet subject to the postulates of
Special Relativity.

Consider yourself as an imagined observer, 'looking' at the entire
universe from a dimensional viewpoint greater by one.
[Aactually a 3D-surface mapping of a 4D-volume onto a 4D-inner
surface being a 5D-outer volume; which becomes 'conifolded' in
itself as 11D-manifold connecting the outer 12D to the inner 10D in
say Calabi Yau toroidal multiconnected topology].

But in simple terms, there you, Hitachi are looking from 12D onto a
11D-'volume', say as prolate ellipsoid.
Now relative to the inside of the 11D-boundary, say the 10D/4D-
Hypersphere, this boundary becomes an 'absolute' frame of reference;
but relative to you, you might as well spin the ellipsoid, a
rotational frame of reference which would remain unnoticable to the
inner observers.

But now the relativity of relativities allows you to spin as major
axis rotation, with invariant focal points; OR minor axes
rotations,which force the focus points into a point circle.

The minor axes rotations deform the prolate ellipsoid into an
encompassing oblate ellipsoid.

All of those manouverings of Hitachi remain unnoticable to the
inside observer, that is any measurements within whatsoever.
This latter supports your position as 'inside' observer, but not as
the 'outer' observer.
If you Hitachi now, Understand this principle of relativity of
relativities, than you can well DEFINE, relative to your own scaling
mechanisms, that the prolate protouniverse is IN FACT rotating
relative to the Hitachi Frame of Reference.
This is the revised form of Mach's Principle.

>
> Nevertheless the observation of the Universe is the one that
> is not yet made even in the former sense. We can only feel It.

Tony
Yes,those FEELINGS are what Hitachi engages in, in DEFINING the
Hitachi Universe in 12 dimensions.

>
> The universe is not a distribution of matter inside a space.
> It produces the local coordinates (by the process of
> localization made by us) and only with this coordinates given
> we can speak of space and momentum and hence local time. So
> that space cannot exist a priori as a container of the
> universe as Atso says.

Tony
This is an unwarranted generalisation, because whilst it is true
that space doesn't exist a priori, the definition processes which
emerge space from time from algorithmic encodings from FEELINGS is
just what I have just described for the Hitachi Universe.

If you could understand, that you are 19.11 billion years old and
that You Hitachi were 'present', when the universe came into being
then in a NOW-Cycletime of 'frozen spacetimes';then you would also
know that 'at present', you are both, where you think you are and
where you might feel perhaps where you could be, namely at the
origins of all things as the 'Mind of God' or the 'Consciousness of
the Creation/Creator'.
This in a sense is the selfrelative scaling of selfreferential
reference frames in their boundary conditions.

>
> In the sense that the Universe can only be felt, it might
> belong to the things that can be felt by the "sixth" sense,
> but that sixth sense is not clear yet at all.

Tony
This is true, but the 'story' can be as clear to you as you allow it
to be.
Considering KNOWING IT ALL, would render your life's journey perhaps
less adventurous in self-discovery.

> Best wishes,
>
> Hitoshi, seconded Tony B.
>
>
>
>
> > The infinite universe on
> > the other hand cannot be changed.
> > So, in order to observe it we would have to make a partial
observation
> > only.
> > The observation will have to be incomplete. This can be
accomplished
> > only with the extra sense, the sense which science must then
reject.
> > The 6th sense, as it is called in paranormal circles, would
fulfill this
> > requirement quite well.
> > Anna
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hitoshi Kitada [mailto:hitoshi@k...]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 8:15 PM
> > To: mirai@m...
> > Cc: 4dworldx@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [4DWorldx] RE: [mirai] Re: private
> >
> >
> > Dear Anna,
> >
> > What I refer to as the universe is substance that is not yet
> > observed, which is the case as it if infinite. On the contrary,
> > what you referred to as the universe is the thing that can be
> > separated into plural parts, then that is not the universe.
> > And what you described as a superimposition is the image that
> > the finite beings imagine from their finite observations of
> > finite things. The usual universe that people talk about is
> > this universe, so about that universe, your description and
> > image are right.
> >
> > > So each time the memory changes, it shows on the "screen" of
> > perception
> > > as "now".
> > > It is also possible, that the 'separation' arose from the
change in
> > the
> > > Memory in the first place.
> >
> > Probably this part of your post is a more important point.
> > Distinction or artificial separation is regarded the first
> > cause as the saying of Buddha: "Only I am holy." Actually what
> > Buddha means by the words is that this subjective view is
> > only possible. Then to think that the separation is a change
> > in the memory would be redundant thought in Buddha's view, but
> > can be a subject of any literary or philosophical thought.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Hitoshi
> > On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 19:45:28 -0700
> > "Anna" <pantheon@i...> wrote:
> >
> > > < The universe itself does not change: It is a stationary bound
> > state..
> > >
> > > Dear Hitoshi, I see a problem here.
> > > A separation, whether it is an artificial illusion or a real
thing,
> > > must change the state of memory, which would then manifest
either as
> > the
> > > superimposed holographic "corrected' image over the
original, or
> > > affect directly the original data, what would probably cause
the whole
> > > system to crush or run erratically, so I do not think this is
the
> > case,
> > > but rather a superimposition, which can be described then as
the NOW
> > > state versus
> > > the Past state.
> > > So each time the memory changes, it shows on the "screen" of
> > perception
> > > as "now".
> > > It is also possible, that the 'separation' arose from the
change in
> > the
> > > Memory in the first place.
> > >
> > > Anna
> > >

Love from the DragonHeart!

ARMAGEDDON=DRAGONMADE=ANDROMEDAG=MARRY7=GODNAMEDRA=82 =666+1=1+2+3+...34+35+36+1=1+2.2+3.3+5.5+7.7+11.11+13.13+17.17

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17017 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17107

SubTimeSpace

"Since the triumph of string theory is its natural incorporation of quantum mechanics and gravity, and since gravity is bound up with the form of space and time, we should not constrain the theory by forcing it to operate within an already existing spacetime framework...

We should allow string theory to CREATE its own spacetime arena by starting in a spaceless and timeless configuration.

The hope is that from this blank slate starting point - possibly in an era that existed before the big bang or the pre-big bang (if we can use temporal terms, for lack of any other linguistic framework) - the theory will describe a universe that evolves to a form in which a background of cohertent string vibrations emerges, yielding the conventional notions of space and time.

Such a framework, if realized, would show that space, time, and, by association, dimension are not essential defining elements of the universe.

Rather, they are convenient notions that emerge from a more basic, atavistic, and primary state.

Alrerady, cutting-edge research on aspects of M-theory, spearheaded by Stephen Shenker, Edward Witten, Tom Banks, Willy Fischler, Leonard Susskind, and others too numerous to name, has shown that something known as a ZERO-BRANE - possibly the most fundamental ingredient in M-theory, an object that behaves somewhat like a point particle at large distances but has drastically different properties at short ones - may give us a glimpse of the spaceless and timeless realm.

Their work has revealed that whereas strings show us that conventional notions of space cease to have relevance below the Planck scale, the zero-branes give essentially the same conclusion but also provide a tiny window on the new unvconventional framework that takes over.

Studies with thesde zero-branes indicate that ordinary geometry is replaced by something known as noncommutative geometry, an area of mathematics developed in large part by the French mathematician Alain Connes.

In this geometrical framework, the conventional notions of space and distance between points melt away, leaving us in a vastly different conceptual landscape."

'The Elegant Universe', page 379; by Brian Greene, Vintage Press, 2000;

'The International Bestseller' (Aventis Science Book Prize 2000)

Enter the Planck-Length-Oscillation and Brane-Quantum-Geometry 101, defined in the Planck-Action as the Action Law: Action=Charge^2!

Love from the DragonHeart!

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17109 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17109

Dear Forum!

Consider the following.

You are sitting in front of your computer screen, perfectly at rest, RELATIVE to ALL other SPACIAL frames of References.

In this idealised case scenario YOU NOW and only THEN MOVE with MAXIMUM VELOCITY 'c' THROUGH TIME as the 4th dimension, say as given in x=ct.

As soon as you MOVE relative to any of the 3 spacedimensions, you begin to SHARE the maximum ct-frame and you move at LESS than Maximum 'c'.

This then is embodied in the Theory of Special Relativity - THE SHARING OF DIMENSIONS.

This conceptual understanding would go a long way to 'explain' SR and GR to the layperson and many of the conceptual difficulties and arguments could become avoided in a clearer understanding of the underpinning assumptions as given and made by Albert Einstein.

Love from the DragonHeart!

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17117 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17117

String Theory & Spacetime Dimensions 26

What is theoretical physics?

Theoretical physicists use mathematics to describe certain aspects of
Nature. Sir Isaac Newton was the first theoretical physicist,
although in his own time his profession was called "natural
philosophy".
The most puzzling and intriguing moving things visible to humans have
always been been the sun, the moon, the planets and the stars we can
see in the night sky. Newton's new calculus, combined with his "Laws
of Motion", made a mathematical model for the force of gravity that
not only described the observed motions of planets and stars in the
night sky, but also of swinging weights and flying cannonballs in
England.
Newton was both a theorist and an experimentalist. He spent many many
long hours, to the point of neglecting his health, observing the way
Nature behaved so that he might describe it better. The so-
called "Newton's Laws of Motion" are not abstract laws that Nature is
somehow forced to obey, but the observed behavior of Nature that is
described in the language of mathematics. In Newton's time, theory
and experiment went together.

Today the functions of theory and observation are divided into two
distinct communities in physics. Both experiments and theories are
much more complex than back in Newton's time. Theorists are exploring
areas of Nature in mathematics that technology so far does not allow
us to observe in experiments. Many of the theoretical physicists who
are alive today may not live to see how the real Nature compares with
her mathematical description in their work. Today's theorists have to
learn to live with ambiguity and uncertainty in their mission to
describe Nature using math.

http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic1.html

The Story so far...

Particles and Relativity

Once electromagnetic fields were thoroughly described using
mathematics, many physicists felt that the field was finished, that
there was nothing left to describe or explain.
While particle physics was developing with quantum mechanics,
increasing observational evidence indicated that light, as
electromagnetic radiation, travelled at one fixed speed (in a vacuum)
in every direction, according to every observer. This discovery and
the mathematics that Einstein developed to describe it and model it
in his Special Theory of Relativity, when combined with the later
development of quantum mechanics, gave birth to the rich subject of
relativistic quantum field theory. Relativistic quantum field theory
is the foundation of our present theoretical ability to describe the
behavior of the subatomic particles physicists have been observing
and studying in the latter half of the 20th century.
General relativity has had many observational successes that proved
its worth as a description of Nature, but two of the predictions of
this theory have staggered the public and scientific imaginations:
the expanding Universe, and black holes. Both have been observed, and
both encapsulate issues that, at least in the mathematics, brush up
against the very nature of reality and existence.

http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic2.html

Why did strings enter the story?

In the 18th and 19th centuries, Newton's mathematical description of
motion using calculus and his model for the gravitational force were
extended very successfully to the emerging science and technology of
electromagnetism. Calculus evolved into classical field theory.
Then the electron was discovered, and particle physics was born.
Through the mathematics of quantum mechanics and experimental
observation, it was deduced that all known particles fell into one of
two classes: bosons or fermions. Bosons are particles that transmit
forces. Many bosons can occupy the same state at the same time. This
is not true for fermions, only one fermion can occupy a given state
at a given time, and this is why fermions are the particles that make
up matter. This is why solids can't pass through one another, why we
can't walk through walls -- because of Pauli repulsion -- the
inability of fermions (matter) to share the same space the way bosons
(forces) can.
But Einstein then extended his Special Theory of Relativity to
encompass Newton's theory of gravitation, and the result, Einstein's
General Theory of Relativity, brought the mathematics called
differential geometry into physics.
General relativity has yielded a wealth of insight into the Universe,
the orbits of planets, the evolution of stars and galaxies, the Big
Bang and recently observed black holes and gravitational lenses.
However, the theory itself only works when we pretend that the
Universe is purely classical and that quantum mechanics is not needed
in our description of Nature.
Originally, string theory was proposed as an explanation for the
observed relationship between mass and spin for certain particles
called hadrons, which include the proton and neutron. Things didn't
work out, though, and Quantum Chromodynamics eventually proved a
better theory for hadrons.
If there were a good quantum theory of gravity, then the particle
that would carry the gravitational force would have zero mass and two
units of spin. This has been known by theoretical physicists for a
long time. This theorized particle is called the graviton.
But it wasn't enough that there be a graviton predicted by string
theory. One can add a graviton to quantum field theory by hand, but
the calculations that are supposed to describe Nature become useless.
This is because, as illustrated in the diagram above, particle
interactions occur at a single point of spacetime, at zero distance
between the interacting particles. For gravitons, the mathematics
behaves so badly at zero distance that the answers just don't make
sense. In string theory, the strings collide over a small but finite
distance, and the answers do make sense.
This was a very great hurdle that was overcome for late 20th century
physics, which is why so many young people are willing to learn the
grueling complex and abstract mathematics that is necessary to study
a quantum theory of interacting strings.

http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic3.html

So what is the string theory, then?

Think of a guitar string that has been tuned by stretching the string
under tension across the guitar. Depending on how the string is
plucked and how much tension is in the string, different musical
notes will be created by the string. These musical notes could be
said to be excitation modes of that guitar string under tension.
In string theory, as in guitar playing, the string must be stretched
under tension in order to become excited. However, the strings in
string theory are floating in spacetime, they aren't tied down to a
guitar. Nonetheless, they have tension. The string tension in string
theory is denoted by the quantity 1/(2 p a'), where a' is
pronounced "alpha prime"and is equal to the square of the string
length scale.
String theories are classified according to whether or not the
strings are required to be closed loops, and whether or not the
particle spectrum includes fermions. In order to include fermions in
string theory, there must be a special kind of symmetry called
supersymmetry, which means for every boson (particle that transmits a
force) there is a corresponding fermion (particle that makes up
matter). So supersymmetry relates the particles that transmit forces
to the particles that make up matter.
￹FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=."Supersymmetric partners to to currently
known particles have not been observed in particle experiments, but
theorists believe this is because supersymmetric particles are too
massive to be detected at current accelerators. Particle accelerators
could be on the verge of finding evidence for high energy
supersymmetry in the next decade. Evidence for supersymmetry at high
energy would be compelling evidence that string theory was a good
mathematical model for Nature at the smallest distance scales.

http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic4.html

How many String theories are there?

There are several ways theorists can build string theories. Start
with the elementary ingredient: a wiggling tiny string. Next decide:
should it be an open string or a closed string? Then ask: will I
settle for only bosons ( particles that transmit forces) or will I
ask for fermions, too (particles that make up matter)? (Remember that
in string theory, a particle is like a note played on the string.)
The final question for making a string theory should be: can I do
quantum mechanics sensibly? For bosonic strings, this question is
only answered in the affirmative if the spacetime dimensions number
26. For superstrings we can whittle it down to 10. How we get down to
the four spacetime dimensions we observe in our world is another
story.

A Brief Table of String Theories

Bosonic

Spacetime Dimensions 26

Only bosons, no fermions means only forces, no matter, with both open
and closed strings. Major flaw: a particle with imaginary mass,
called the tachyon

Dimensions 10

Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with both open and closed
strings, no tachyon, group symmetry is SO(32)

Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no
tachyon, massless fermions spin both ways (nonchiral)

Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no
tachyon, massless fermions only spin one way (chiral)

Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no
tachyon, heterotic, meaning right moving and left moving strings
differ, group symmetry is SO(32)

Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no
tachyon, heterotic, meaning right moving and left moving strings
differ, group symmetry is E8 x E8

If we ask how to get from ten spacetime dimensions to four spacetime
dimensions, then the number of string theories grows, because there
are so many possible ways to make six dimensions much much smaller
than the other four in string theory. This process of
compactification of unwanted spacetime dimensions yields interesting
physics on its own.
This period in string history has been given the name the second
string revolution.
Stay tuned to this web site, we may some day soon be changing the
name to The Official M Theory Web Site!

http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic5.html

A new picture of string theory

At one time, string theorists believed there were five distinct
superstring theories: type I, types IIA and IIB, and the two
heterotic string theories. The thinking was that out of these five
candidate theories, only one was the actual correct Theory of
Everything, and that theory was the theory whose low energy limit,
with ten dimensions spacetime compactified down to four, matched the
physics observed in our world today. The other theories would be
nothing more than rejected string theories, mathematical constructs
not blessed by Nature with existence.
But now it is known that this naive picture was wrong, and that the
the five superstring theories are connected to one another as if they
are each a special case of some more fundamental theory, of which
there is only one. These theories are related by transformations that
are called dualities. If two theories are related by a duality
transformation, it means that the first theory can be transformed in
some way so that it ends up looking just like the second theory. The
two theories are then said to be dual to one another under that kind
of transformation.
These dualities link quantities that were also thought to be
separate. Large and small distance scales, strong and weak coupling
strengths -- these quantities have always marked very distinct limits
of behavior of a physical system, in both classical field theory and
quantum particle physics. But strings can obscure the difference
between large and small, strong and weak, and this is how these five
very different theories end up being related.

Large and small distance

The duality symmetry that obscures our ability to distinguish between
large and small distance scales is called T-duality, and comes about
from the compactification of extra space dimensions in a ten
dimensional superstring theory.
Suppose we're in ten spacetime dimensions, which means we have nine
space and one time. Take one of those nine space dimensions and make
it a circle of radius R, so that traveling in that direction for a
distance L=2pR takes you around the circle and brings you back to
where you started.
A particle traveling around this circle will have a quantized
momentum around the circle, and this will contribute to the total
energy of the particle. But a string is very different, because in
addition to traveling around the circle, the string can wrap around
the circle. The number of times the string winds around the circle is
called the winding number, and that is also quantized.
Now the weird thing about string theory is that these momentum modes
and the winding modes can be interchanged, as long as we also
interchange the radius R of the circle with the quantity Lst2/R,
where Lst is the string length.
If R is very much smaller than the string length, then the quantity
Lst2/R is going to be very large. So exchanging momentum and winding
modes of the string exchanges a large distance scale with a small
distance scale.
This type of duality is called T-duality. T-duality relates Type IIA
superstring theory to Type IIB superstring theory. That means if we
take Type IIA and Type IIB theory and compactify them both on a
circle, then switching the momentum and winding modes, and switching
the distance scale, changes one theory into the other! The same is
also true for the two heterotic theories.
So T-duality obscures the difference between large and small
distances. What looks like a very large distance to a momentum mode
of a string looks, looks to a winding mode of a string like a very
small distance. This is very counter to how physics has always worked
since the days of Kepler and Newton.

Strong and weak coupling

What is a coupling constant? This is some number that tells us how
strong an interaction is. Newton's constant is the coupling constant
for the gravitational force, for example. If Newton's constant were
twice the size it is measured to be now, then we would feel twice as
much gravitational force from the Earth, and the Earth would feel
twice as much from the Moon and the Sun, and so on. A larger coupling
constant means a stronger force, and a smaller coupling constant
means a weaker force.
Every force has a coupling constant. For electromagnetism, the
coupling constant is proportional to the square of the electric
charge. When physicists study the quantum behavior of
electromagnetism, they can't solve the whole theory exactly, so they
break it down to little pieces, and each little piece that they can
solve has a different power of the coupling constant in front of it.
At normal energies in electromagnetism, the coupling constant is
small, and so the first few little pieces make a good approximation
to the real answer. But if the coupling constant gets large, that
method of calculation breaks down, and the little pieces become
worthless as an approximation to the real physics.
This also can happen in string theory. String theories have a
coupling constant. But unlike in particle theories, the string
coupling constant is not just a number, but depends on one of the
oscillation modes of the string, called the dilaton. Exchanging the
dilaton field with minus itself exchanges a very large coupling
constant with a very small one.
This symmetry is called S-duality. If two string theories are related
by S-duality, then one theory with a strong coupling constant is the
same as the other theory with weak coupling constant. Notice that the
theory with strong coupling cannot be understood by means of
expanding in a series, but the theory with weak coupling can. So if
the two theories are related by S-duality, then we just need to
understand the weak theory, and that is equivalent to understanding
the strong theory. For a physicist, that is the proverbial two-for-
one deal!
Superstring theories related by S-duality are: Type I superstring
theory with heterotic SO(32) superstring theory, and Type IIB theory
with itself.

What does it mean?

T-duality is something unique to string physics. It's something
particles cannot do, because a particle cannot get wrapped around a
circle like a string. If string theory is a correct theory of Nature,
then this implies that one some deep level, the separation between
large vs. small distance scales in physics is not a fixed separation
but a fluid one, dependent upon the type of probe we use to measure
distance, and how we count the states of the probe.
The same goes for S-duality, which teaches us that the strong
coupling limit of one string theory can describe the weak coupling
limit of a different string theory.
This sounds like it goes against all traditional physics, but this is
indeed a reasonable outcome for a quantum theory of gravity, because
Einstein's theory of gravity tells us that gravity is about how the
sizes of objects and magnitudes of interactions are measured in
curved spacetime.

http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic6.html

More than just strings

Another surprising revelation was that superstring theories are not
just theories of one-dimensional objects. There are higher
dimensional objects in string theory with dimensions from zero
(points) to nine, called p-branes. In terms of branes, what we
usually call a membrane would be a two-brane, a string is called a
one-brane and a point is called a zero-brane.
What makes a p-brane? A p-brane is a spacetime object that is a
solution to the Einstein equation in the low energy limit of
superstring theory, with the energy density of the nongravitational
fields confined to some p-dimensional subspace of the nine space
dimensions in the theory. (Remember, superstring theory lives in ten
spacetime dimensions, which means one time dimension plus nine space
dimensions.) For example, in a solution with electric charge, if the
energy density in the electromagnetic field was distributed along a
line in spacetime, this one-dimensional line would be considered a p-
brane with p=1.
A special class of p-branes in string theory are called D branes.
Roughly speaking, a D brane is a p-brane where the ends of open
strings are localized on the brane. A D brane is like a collective
excitation of strings.
These objects took a long time to be discovered in string theory,
because they are buried deep in the mathematics of T-duality. D
branes are important in understanding black holes in string theory,
especially in counting the quantum states that lead to black hole
entropy, which was a very big accomplishment for string theory.

How many dimensions?

Before string theory won the full attention of the theoretical
physics community, the most popular unified theory was an eleven
dimensional theory of supergravity, which is supersymmetry combined
with gravity. The eleven-dimensional spacetime was to be compactified
on a small 7-dimensional sphere, for example, leaving four spacetime
dimensions visible to observers at large distances.
This theory didn't work as a unified theory of particle physics,
because it doesn't have a sensible quantum limit as a point particle
theory. But this eleven dimensional theory would not die. It
eventually came back to life in the strong coupling limit of
superstring theory in ten dimensions.
How could a superstring theory with ten spacetime dimensions turn
into a supergravity theory with eleven spacetime dimensions? We've
already learned that duality relations between superstring theories
relate very different theories, equate large distance with small
distance, and exchange strong coupling with weak coupling. So there
must be some duality relation that can explain how a superstring
theory that requires ten spacetime dimensions for quantum consistency
can really be a theory in eleven spacetime dimensions after all.
Since we know that all string theories are related, and we suspect
that they are but different limits of some more fundamental theory,
then perhaps that more fundamental theory exists in eleven spacetime
dimensions? These question bring us to the topic of M theory.

The theory currently known as M

Technically speaking, M theory is is the unknown eleven-dimensional
theory whose low energy limit is the supergravity theory in eleven
dimensions discussed above. However, many people have taken to also
using M theory to label the unknown theory believed to be the
fundamental theory from which the known superstring theories emerge
as special limits.
We still don't know the fundamental M theory, but a lot has been
learned about the eleven-dimensional M theory and how it relates to
superstrings in ten spacetime dimensions.
In M theory, there are also extended objects, but they are called M
branes rather than D branes. One class of the M branes in this theory
has two space dimensions, and this is called an M2 brane.
Now consider M theory with the tenth space dimension compactified
into a circle of radius R. If one of the two space dimensions that
make up the M2 brane is wound around that circle, then we can equate
the resulting object with the fundamental string (one-brane) of type
IIA superstring theory. The type IIA theory appears to be a ten
dimensional theory in the normal perturbative limit, but reveals an
extra space dimension, and an equivalence to M theory, in the limit
of very strong coupling.
We still don't know what the fundamental theory behind string theory
is, but judging from all of these relationships, it must be a very
interesting and rich theory, one where distance scales, coupling
strengths and even the number of dimensions in spacetime are not
fixed concepts but fluid entities that shift with our point of view.

http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic7.html

Dear karthic and all!

You may also visit/join my site below or ask questions here for further information on M-Theory.

Love from the DragonHeart!

ARMAGEDDON=DRAGONMADE=ANDROMEDAG=MARRY7=GODNAMEDRA=82 =666+1=1+2+3+...34+35+36+1=1+2.2+3.3+5.5+7.7+11.11+13.13+17.17

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17118 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17118

This group attempts to correlate the advances made in M-Theory with the subtimespace scenario implied by M-Theory's demetrication.

This discussion so must necessarily also engage the philosophy of science.

If there 'was' no space and no time; then what made it?

Is there a creator or are the investigators 'inventing' the universe, reshaping and redefining the same as they 'travel' through sdpace and time?

If the second, then temoral 'Time' must be cyclic a kind of selfrelative NOW-Time as say embodied in Albert Einstein's Proper Tau-Time relating to the curvature scalefactor Rc.

Rc=c.dt/dTau with the path length x=ct relating Special Relativity to General Relativity.

A Relativity of Relativities, then becomes the overarching principle of M-Theory and how all this relates to the advent and evolution of the observing spacetime traveller, that is the medium of discussion on my site.

All are welcome! Tony B.

Love from the DragonHeart!

ARMAGEDDON=DRAGONMADE=ANDROMEDAG=MARRY7=GODNAMEDRA=82 =666+1=1+2+3+...34+35+36+1=1+2.2+3.3+5.5+7.7+11.11+13.13+17.17

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17119 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17119

Dear Forums!

Yet another can of worms is opened for the superficial skeptics to
deride establishment physics.

It is so unfortunate, that it must be a few outsiders from academia,
like myself, to then defend the same orthodoxy responsible for the
outcasting.

But here it is once again.
Black Holes have NOT been shown to NOT exist.
They have been shown to become REDEFINED, say as 'FUZZBALLS'.

Reference: NEW SCIENTIST; January 22nd, 2005; p.30-33. in an article
headlined as: "Bye bye black hole".

And Hawking accepted 'defeat' (in a bet with Kip Thorne) about
the 'Information Paradox' last year in much publisized and
internationally acclaimed conferences.

And it was String Theory, which challenged conventional Black Hole
Theory in parallel with Abhas Mitra.

ONLY one thing has become eliminated - the 'dreaded singularity'.
And have Inot posted about the 'wormhole'taking over the singularity
from the beginnings here?

The Event Horizon has become 'desharpened' or 'smeared out' taking
account of 'string configurations'.
So the event horizon now relates to 'Stringy Stars', previously
known as black holes, consisting of a frothing mass of strings
without a sharp boundary.

History (as per reference New Scientist).

1915: Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity describes how
matter and energy bend space-time

1916: Karl Schwarzschils solves Einstein's equations for the case of
a very densepoint mass

1965: Roger Penrose develops the idea of a singularity, a point
where space becomes infinitely dense

1967: John Wheeler coins the term'black hole' todescribe a star
that collapses to a singularity

1969: Penrose suggests that singularities are hidden behind an
event horizon

1973: Stephen Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein calculate the entropy -
a measure of the amount of information - in a black hole and get a
very large answer

1975: Hawking shows quantum mechanics predicts that energy escapes
from black holes. He and colleague Kip Thorne bet John Preskill that
this Hawking radiation cannot carry information

1996: Andrew Strominger and Cumrun Vafa use string theory to
calculate the entropy of a black hole, getting the same answer as
Hawking and Bekenstein {validating string theory}

2004: Calculations in quantummechanics and string theory suggest
that information can escape from black holes. Hawking concedes the
bet.Models of black holes fromstring theory cast doubt on the idea
of the singuilarity {NOT on the idea of black holes themselves}.

Tony B.

>
>
> Meet the Indian who took on Stephen Hawking
>
> August 03, 2004 09:33 IST
> Last Updated: August 03, 2004 10:06 IST
>
>
> An Indian theoretical physicist who questioned the existence of
black
> holes and thereby challenged Stephen Hawking of Britain at last
feels
> vindicated. But he is sad.
> Abhas Mitra, at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in
Mumbai, was
> perhaps the first and the only scientist who had the guts to
openly
> challenge Hawking of Cambridge University who is regarded by many
as the
>
> modern-day Einstein.
> For over 30 years Hawking and his followers were perpetuating the
theory
>
> that black holes -- resulting from gravitational collapse of
massive
> stars -- destroy everything that falls into them preventing even
light
> or information to escape.
> Mitra, four years ago, in a controversial paper in the reputed
journal,
> Foundations of Physics Letters, showed that Hawking's theory was
flawed.
>
> He proved black holes couldn't exist because their formation and
> existence flouted Einstein's general theory of relativity.
> Except a handful, the majority of mainstream scientists dismissed
> Mitra's conclusions even though, till now, no scientist has
contradicted
>
> him in writing. Mitra invited several notable black hole theorists
> including Hawking and Jayant Narlikar of India to criticise his
work but
>
> no one replied.
> Naturally, Mitra now feels vindicated following Hawking's own
admission
> two weeks ago at a conference in Dublin, Ireland, that there isn't
a
> black hole "in the absolute sense."
> In essence, Hawking's "new" black holes never quite become the
kind that
>
> gobble up everything. Instead, they keep emitting radiation for a
long
> time -- exactly what Mitra showed in his paper.
> Hawking's about-turn has vindicated Mitra. But, in retrospect, he
feels
> sad about the treatment he got at home while trying to take on
Hawking
> all by himself.
> Too "embarrassed" to be associated with a man who challenged
Hawking,
> even Mitra's close colleagues avoided him and he became an
outcast. To
> add insult to injury, BARC authorities removed Mitra from the
> theoretical physics division on the excuse that this division was
meant
> only for those doing "strategic research."
> "The ironic element in this whole exercise," Mitra told PTI, "is
that
> the person who actually dared to show that there cannot be any
black
> holes was completely ignored both by the academicians and the
media."
> A black hole is characterised by an imaginary boundary called
the "event
>
> horizon" that shuts everything within. But in 1976 Hawking
introduced
> quantum mechanics into the problem and claimed that black holes do
> radiate energy -- although at a low rate -- and ultimately vanish
into
> nothingness.
> The vanishing act, however, destroys all the trapped information
as well
>
> - directly conflicting with the laws of quantum physics that say
that
> information can never be completely wiped out. This is
the "information
> loss paradox" associated with black holes that, in a way, was
created by
>
> Hawking's own work.
> One logical resolution of this paradox would have been to realise
that
> black holes did not exist. But Mitra says that such sweeping, yet
> logical thinking "was never undertaken by either party involved in
this
> prolonged debate and they kept on debating effectively to make the
> paradox more popular and perpetuating."
> It was then that Mitra published his seminal paper showing that
> gravitational collapse of massive star can at best produce
an "Eternally
>
> Collapsing Object" but not an "event horizon" or a black hole in
the
> strict sense. "Since no event horizon is formed, there is no
paradox at
> all in the first place," Mitra argued.
> In a subsequent work Mitra showed that the "Eternally Collapsing
> Objects" that he proposed are actually the massive compact objects
now
> referred to as Black Hole Candidates (BHCs).
> Motivated by Mitra's work, American physicists Stanley Robertson
and
> Darryl Leiter have confirmed in 2002 that BHCs have intense
magnetic
> fields as predicted by Mitra and therefore are not real black
holes
> which cannot have magnetic field.
> Mitra says that in the light of new developments, "the supposed
black
> holes are not really black holes and it would be intellectual
dishonesty
>
> to still call them as black holes and keep the debate alive."
> Though his own colleagues had sidelined Mitra after his first
paper, he
> is solaced by the encouraging e-mails he had received from several
> physicists around the world.
> One from Salvatore Antoci, University of Padova, Italy, a noted
> relativist says: "Let me express to you my great joy in seeing
your
> much-disputed paper eventually accepted for publication by
Foundations
> of Physics Letters. Convincing the community of relativists about
the
> mythical nature of black holes will remain a tremendous task, but
it is
> a little less desperate thanks to your success."
> Peder Norberg, of the Department of Physics, Durham University,
UK, said
>
> he carefully read through Mitra's paper and found "that most of
the
> results presented there are more than impressive" while Stanley
> Robertson, a relativist of South Oklahoma State University, USA
said:
> "On first becoming acquainted with your work, I was dubious,
thinking it
>
> unlikely that something as profound as belief in the existence of
black
> holes could become erroneously established in the literature. In
the
> meanwhile, I have found no errors in your work. It is fascinating."
> The only Indian who praised Mitra's work was relativist Pankaj
Joshi of
> the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai.
> The BARC scientist recalls the episode in the 1930s when
Subramanian
> Chandrasekhar's work on the upper mass limit of white dwarfs was
> considered incorrect by celebrated astrophysicists like Sir Arthur
> Eddington even though no one could precisely point out any error
in
> Chandra's work.

Love from the DragonHeart!

ARMAGEDDON=DRAGONMADE=ANDROMEDAG=MARRY7=GODNAMEDRA=82 =666+1=1+2+3+...34+35+36+1=1+2.2+3.3+5.5+7.7+11.11+13.13+17.17

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17127 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17127

"The first person to develop the idea of black holes was the French
mathematician Pierre Simon de Laplace in 1798. Laplace agreed with Isaac
Newton that light is made up of particles. He theorized that if enough
mass were added to a star, the gravitational force would become so great
that its escape velocity would equal the speed of light."

"The possibility that stars could collapse to form black holes was first
theoretically "discovered" in l939 by J. Robert Oppenheimer and H. Snyder"

What I was looking for was Einstein's explanation of why there were not
gazillions of tiny black holes created during the big bang when energies
were technically high enough for them to form. He proved that a
singularity could not be formed do to quantum events manifesting larger
distance than the critical size by x=h*c/e. This is one area where many
have said Einstein was wrong, black holes do exist, but he was right as
the singularities do not, apparently exist. The nearly black "fuzz
balls" can be called black holes with the understanding that they
contain no singularity and are not completely black.

In a way these tiny quantum black holes do exist and are called
particles, they eat spacetime information causing an apparent bending
of time space. However, they only exist is certain stable organized
structures such as protons, neutrons and atoms, that have such high
Hawking's radiation that they spit out most energy they consume after
what we consider a very short interval.

Extending Hawking's argument, I contend that an object or craft of any
size could escape a black hole by quantum tunneling at very high speed,
such that its de Broogie wavelength would place it outside the black
hole with a high probability.

Jim

TONY BERMANSEDER wrote:

> *Dear Forums!
> *
> *Yet another can of worms is opened for the superficial skeptics to
> deride establishment physics.
>
> It is so unfortunate, that it must be a few outsiders from academia,
> like myself, to then defend the same orthodoxy responsible for the
> outcasting.
>
> But here it is once again.
> Black Holes have NOT been shown to NOT exist.
> They have been shown to become REDEFINED, say as 'FUZZBALLS'.
>
> Reference: NEW SCIENTIST; January 22nd, 2005; p.30-33. in an article
> headlined as: "Bye bye black hole".
>
> And Hawking accepted 'defeat' (in a bet with Kip Thorne) about
> the 'Information Paradox' last year in much publisized and
> internationally acclaimed conferences.
>
> And it was String Theory, which challenged conventional Black Hole
> Theory in parallel with Abhas Mitra.
>
> ONLY one thing has become eliminated - the 'dreaded singularity'.
> And have Inot posted about the 'wormhole'taking over the singularity
> from the beginnings here?
>
> The Event Horizon has become 'desharpened' or 'smeared out' taking
> account of 'string configurations'.
> So the event horizon now relates to 'Stringy Stars', previously
> known as black holes, consisting of a frothing mass of strings
> without a sharp boundary.
>
> History (as per reference New Scientist).
>
> 1915: Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity describes how
> matter and energy bend space-time
>
> 1916: Karl Schwarzschils solves Einstein's equations for the case of
> a very densepoint mass
>
> 1965: Roger Penrose develops the idea of a singularity, a point
> where space becomes infinitely dense
>
> 1967: John Wheeler coins the term'black hole' todescribe a star
> that collapses to a singularity
>
> 1969: Penrose suggests that singularities are hidden behind an
> event horizon
>
> 1973: Stephen Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein calculate the entropy -
> a measure of the amount of information - in a black hole and get a
> very large answer
>
> 1975: Hawking shows quantum mechanics predicts that energy escapes
> from black holes. He and colleague Kip Thorne bet John Preskill that
> this Hawking radiation cannot carry information
>
> 1996: Andrew Strominger and Cumrun Vafa use string theory to
> calculate the entropy of a black hole, getting the same answer as
> Hawking and Bekenstein {validating string theory}
>
> 2004: Calculations in quantummechanics and string theory suggest
> that information can escape from black holes. Hawking concedes the
> bet.Models of black holes fromstring theory cast doubt on the idea
> of the singuilarity {NOT on the idea of black holes themselves}.
>
> Tony B.
>

Allow me to present some details about Jim's Position (for further refeences).

About the Black Holes; what has changed is that the 'singularity' (say as proposed by Penrose, Oxford) has been found superfluous, precisely because the 'quantum smearing' of it is now proposed to be 'stringy'. This also renders the 'event horizon' less sharply defined.

Because the Holographic Principle has shown that the surface area of a Black Hole maps all its volume, so reducing dimensionality from 3 to 2, in say Planck-Area quanta, linked to Hawking entropy in the factor Area/4; the Information contained in the Planck-Areas as bits can be modelled on the properties of the quantum areas.

So Information has become a physical property of Black Holes in also relating thermodynamic entropy to surface area.

This has been the great 'breakthrough' in string theory over the last decade; showing that the mathematical entropy count of Hawking and Bekenstein gives the same result as the 'counting' of superstring vibration patterms.

So you can answer your own question; IF information is a physical property, than the information cannot be lost, if the conservation laws are valid.

It gets more interesting however; the string theories still are missing in many details. For example they propose that the information should reappear as Hawking Radiation, but only if the outgoing Hawking Radiation doesn't collide with infalling matter.

All sorts of mathematical models then surface; like quantum entanglement revisited and say nonlocal associations of quantum effects.

All rather complicated, but the key will be the now 'kind of defunct' wormhole singularity.

My model predicts that the 'new wormhole' now (eliminating strange matter) becomes a quantum entanglement with itself (pretty much the orthodox view also),which doesn't engage in Hawking Radiation (with the related virtual pair-production/annihilation), BUT instead forms antimatter coupled Quasar/White Hole Output.

Matter-AntiRadiation coupling going IN becomes Antimatter-Radiation coupling going OUT, necessarily nonlocal in principle, because of the quantum selfcoupling.

The Antiradiation is the sought after weak interaction gauge bosonic baseblueprint, which underpins the Higgs RestmassInduction mechanism. It is massless as 'colourcharged' sourcesinkboson, but mnanifests as the colourless base photyon being its own antiparticle in non gauge form.

Here is the link between Jim's atomic/subatomic scale and MicroBlack Holes as derived from the Cosmic Ray spectra.
3. A BLACK HOLE NUCLEON CONNECTION

Our discovery of the one-to-one correspondence between magnetic-

and electric charges now allows us to state the General Principle

underpinning all of physics.

ALL MASS IS MAGNETOELECTRIC AND ALL CHARGE IS ELECTROMAGNETIC!

All ElectroCharged Mass is CurrentEquivalent to a MagnetoCharged

Displacement in a MagnetoMassCurrent Iss=(n).2e.fss.

All MagnetoCharged Mass is CurrentEquivalent to an ElectroCharged

Displacement in an ElectroMassCurrent: dQ/dt=d(n.e)/dt.

The Electropolic Charge of a particle manifests in the Coulombic

Electricity and the Magnetopolic Charge of a particle manifests in

the StarCoulombic Magneticity.

All mass is quantised in the restmass mss-quantum as fss-magneto-

current-equivalent: mss=hfss/c^2=2.469135802x10^-81 kg*.

Hence the entropic counter for a single VPE-quantum is fps^2=9x10^60.

All massless particles are magnetocharged in the supersymmetric

colourcharge of the UFoQR (Unified Field of Quantum Relativity).

The agency for the colourcharging is the quantum geometry of

colour-charge-displacement, given in the YLEM-TEMPLATE.

This is the Higgs Bosonic Blueprint of the Dineutron (Ylem), given

as a trisected Kernel-InnerRing(annular)-OuterRing KKIRKOR pattern

for the topological mapping of 11D onto 2D.

One can denote a primary colour/anticolour spectrum in triplets,

doublets and singlets, following the methodology of QCD and the

Standard Models of the hindsight.

Then the Ylem-template is: HB(0)=YYCCMM(0)+RRRRGGGGBBB(0), defining

mass defined in Matter-YCM-blueprints and in a scalar (0spin)Higgs-

(Anti)Neutrinoic Kernel of (R^4G^4B^4), and as RedGreenBlue and

CyanMagentaYellow colour/anticolour denotations respectively.

The scalar Higgs (Anti)Neutrino defines the relationship between

colourcharge and magnetocharge in the MesonicInnerRing MassInduction

and is defined in the mapping of the ylemic template of the micro-

cosm onto the evolution of the macrocosm and as specified in the

second cosmogenetic algorithm in the Googolplexes E, F and G.

The formulation for the Higgs-Neutrinoic-Mass so becomes:

m{Higgs-Neutrinos}=(lps.me.rE)/(2p.Re).[1/rG-1/rF] [Eq.#11]

=9.300746x10^-38 kg* or 0.052106 eV*.

This gives the InnerMesonicRing as a modular mapping onto the ylemic

evolution of prototypical Neutron Stars in the annular difference

between spacequanta counters F and G.

It also defines this annular region as the mass of the Tau-(Anti)Neu-

trino, centred on 3.00 eV* and as superpositions of the massless

Kernel-(Anti)Neutrinoes (Electrons and Muons of RRGGBB and BBGGRR

quantum- and colourcharged specifications).

The generation of the ylemic neutronstars sets the dineutronic

radii as a function of their temperature only and is given in:

Rylem(T) = (kT.Re^3/Go.mc^2)^1/2 m* [Eq.#12]

The process of the ylemic-mesonic creation spanned the period of

[843-1036] seconds* after tps and set the decay for the neutron.

The AntiHiggs-blueprint for Antimatter is supersymmetric to HB(0)

as: HB'(0)=MMCCYY(0)+BBBBGGGGRRRR(0) and manifests in the VPE-

transformations (Pair-Production/Annihilation), subject to the

modular duality between EMR (ElectroMagnetic Radiation) and GR

(Gravitational Radiation) and as defined in the colourcharge temp-

lates for the gauge bosonic fieldparticles (Graviton, Eps-Photon,

Ess-AntiPhoton with Weakons and the Gluon).

There exists the blueprint YYCCMM(-1), called the RestMassPhoton=RMP,

which is the supersymmetric substitute for the suppressed Antimatter

in the UFoQR.

Directly linked to fermionic spin patterns, the RMP is massless and

symmetrises the Strong Nuclear Interaction in its link to the other

gauge field agents.

The RMP and can be used to quantify the 'Missing Mass' as AWARENESS

or Consciousness Energy via the definition of the Magnetocharge as a

kind of angular acceleration acting upon a volumised spacequantum.

The agency is the Timedifferential for Frequency, defining:

df/dt = AWARENESS bounded by fps^2 and hence the entropy counter

of the VPE-Continuum, defined in googolplexes E, F, G and H.

The evolution of the Gravitational Constant G so relates to the

scenario of magnetocharged mass appearing or disappearing as a

function of the overall oscillatory nature of the encompassing

11-dimensional supermembrane and its 10-dimensional 'heartbeat'.

One can so discover the consciousness of the created universe as

an inherent quality of physically defined Awareness parameters and

their manifestation in locally-connected symmetric and nonlocally

disconnected (but entangled) supersymmetric interactions.

The transformation of Anti-EMR into GR at the instanton fss=tps

demands the nonexistence of Antimatter and suppresses the AntiHB's

process of restmass-inducing the VPE-sinksources of the magnetic

monopolic current-knots to become particles defined in antimatter.

The 12 monopole junctions in the UFoQR and their defining para-

meters, restrict, for example, the manifesto of the MCY-anti-

matter blueprint to the Pair-Production/Annihilation circuit

8-9-10-9-8 over 337 degrees and encompassing an even p-EMI-point,

necessary to manifest the Electromagnetic Interaction.

The EMI-point is a root of the UF-waveequation at junction #9 and

couples lefthanded matter YCM to righthanded antimatter MCY.

There are no zeroes for individuated YCM or MCY production, but the

EMI-point allows the creation of antineutrinos in the template

(RRGGBB)(+1/2).

Since there is no odd p-GI point in that interval, no neutrino-blu-

prints (BBGGRR)(-1/2) are available and the process of Pair-

Production in (YCM+MCY=VPE) requires mass to be present to allow it

to occur.

The general generation of the Matter-Antimatter templates became

fixed BEFORE (timeindependent Order Principality) the UF-wave-

function (UF=p/4{sin[3x/2]-cos[3x/4]} became the Gravity-Inclusive,

wavepropagation, superposing upon the original generator, given in

(uf={sin[x]+sin[-x]}), which did establish the EMI-GI junctions, as

an EMR-ANTIEMR propagation for the linearisation of the superbranes.

[Eq.#1] establishes the Energy-Equivalence modulated by UF in the

Black/Einstein & White/Planck DoubleIdentity.

This B-W duality defines 8 permutative states, which are assumed

as the colourcharges of the One Gluon as the ForceCarrier for the

Strong-Nuclear-Interaction (SNI) in the Octet: {BBB, BBW, BWB, WBB,

WWB, WBW, BWW and WWW}.

The magnetopolic junction-knots, defining the UF are defined in the

following analysis, using definitions utilised before.

[ec]=(Quantum Displacement Current)(Planck-Oscillation Displacement)

=(n).2efss.(e/c^2)=(n).2efss.lPlanck.Alpha^1/2=OlPlanck.c^3

Integer (n)=ec^3/(2fss.e^2)=c^3.fps/2e=81x10^54/(2e),

which using the dimensionless qualities maps magnetocharge e* onto

electrocharge e as:

(n)=81x10^54/1000=81x10^51,

which is an integer, by definition e*=1/Eps=1/(hfps)=fss/h

=Constant#4/(3x10^30)=15x10^32/(3x10^30) by algorithmic definition

and the determination of lps=c/fps in the Heisenberg Finestructure.

This indicates that 81x10^51 magnetocharged current elements com-

prise one monopolic mass in the mappings between e* and e.

Define Unified Action [h]u=[e.e*]u and OlPlanck-Displacement [e/c^2]u;

then mo=hf/c^2=[hc/OlPlanck]u=[ee*.c^3/e]u=[ec]u.

This shows the equivalence of mass mo to the magnetic monopole

quantum [ec], manifesting supermembrane IIB in the form of the

magneto-electricity.

We can now set a general evolvement for the e*-e mapping in the

Black Hole spectra, as indicated in the previous discussions.

The Schwarzschild radii are lower bounded in wormhole radius rps,

restricting Black Hole Masses to be above Mlimit=rps.c^2/(2Go) kg*.

This calculates to (15c^3.lps/2p)=6445.775195 kg*.

But this is also (15(ec in eV).lpsp) kg*, reducing the Black Hole

minimum mass in the ratio c^3/[ec]=1 in F-Space, but calculates as

5.602393139x10^35 in C-Space, which is the Planck-Length-Oscillation

in terms of OlPlanck=lPlanck.Alpha^1/2=1.784951493x10^-36.

A Mass-Spectrum: mPlanck..[ec]..-mps---m(elementary Particle)=h/l.c

proportions to: lPlanck..l[ec].-lps---2Re (electronic diameter).

This mapping in the scale indicated is the cause for the phenomena

in the quantum realm to remain atomically restricted.

The electronic radius Re=10^10.lps/360 and it is this wormhole

perimeter, as eigendefinition for the generating supermembrane

EpsEss; which defines the minimum/maximum conditions and henceforth

the manifestation of the quantification scenarios.

MicroBlack Holes so are defined in the mass of the magnetic monopole

and the superbrane hierarchies.

In particular the [ec=c^3] energy defines the threshold for the

Gamma-Ray Bursters and the Cosmic Ray Maxima.

The Superbrane IIA (Ecosmic Superbrane) forms the energy threshold

for the 'knee' in the Cosmic Ray spectrum and Superbrane EpsEss its

corresponding 'ankle'.

The Hawking Radiation of 'evaporating Black Holes' manifests not as

a virtual energy, but as White Hole/Quasar Luminosity, maximised in

the SourcePower per Unitmass:

[E]u=mps.c^2[fps/mps]u=[fps]u.c^2=2.7x10^47 (Monopolic Watts/kg)*.

The Unification Frequency [f]u also derives from the monopole mass

[ec] via: [I]u=[ec/l]u=e[f]u=>e*[f]u=2Re.c^2.[f]u=[c^3]u, by the

definitions [2Re]=[l]u=1/lss=lps and M={Eps/Ess}fss={fps^2}/lss.c

and the entropy counter for mss as the supermembrane coupling

constant applied to 360.Re=10^10.lps.

Hence [f]u=[M]u=(3/2)MSun =MChandrasekhar (Upper Limit).

Now a 'young' and typical Neutron Star is born with Schwarzschild

Radius RNS=2GoM/c^2 which, for MChandrasekhar gives 7407.4074 m*.

[Eq.#12] relates the Temparature as: TChandra=19.846564 Billion K*.

Hence: TChandra=4Go^3MChandra^2.mc^2/(c^4.k.Re^3) K* [Eq.#13]

A planetesimal-generating boundary is calculated by Googolplex E for

a temperature of so 1.2 Billion K* for Rylem=1.82144 km*.

Periodic Magnetic Fields for Neutron Stars (and all massive spinning

bodies) are related by modifying the Biot-Savart-Equation in the

utility of the superbrane parameters.

The Biot-Savart Law: B=mo.Qv/(4p.R^2) transforms to:

B(x)=p.M/(T.c^2.R(x)) (Tesla), [Eq.#14]

where period T relates a radial scalefactor R(x) for a magnetic

field B(x) at a distance R(x) from the centre of the massive body.

Using the above expression, say for a spinning planet Earth with

a differential mantle-core radius of 1.2x10^6 metres and a core-mass

of 9x10^22 kg, calculates the Earth's magnetic field at so 0.3 gauss

projected as average flux-core differentiation.

Plasma emitting bodies (say Solar Wind) are modified in the

alternative expression for Biot-Savart:

Bionisation=mo(ec)(v/c)N/(8p.Rcorona^2) Tesla;

N is the 'lightmass fraction' relative to a typical nucleon (proton)

and uses 2e=e* in the chargecounter Q=ne.

A 'naked' Magnetic Flux of 462 gauss for the sun so becomes enhanced

to 2800 gauss, using the Chandrasekhar Mass and the solar parameters

with v=800 km/s and a solar plasma emission of 3.5 Million tons per

second for a coronal radius of 2.8x10^8 m for the solar core.

Modular duality for a Solar Period P=c/lSun=346410161.5 s* for

a halfcycle oscillation of 10.98 years/sidereal.

This solar geometry maps the trisected quark geometric blueprint

(and the eo/mo geometric definition using the partitioning

for c^2) in a unit solar radius l'=lSun.sec(30 degrees).

A 'Quasi-Evaporation' reflects the subatomic duality B<->W, (mani-

festing most apparently in quark-antiquark couplings acting on VPE).

A SourceSink ellipsoidal focalisation in locally connected F-Space,

appears nonlocally quantum entangled in C-Space.

Negative Imaginary Mass becomes superparitive Positive Mass in:

-mc^2[B->W](superparity 11D-mirror)[W->B]mc^2.

Radiation/Antimatter form Quasar-coupled Output RGB.MCY, mirrored in

Antiradiation/Matter unified Input BGR.YCM for AntiQuasar/BlackHoles

in antiphotonic graviton definitions.

(Photons, Gluons and Gravitons, all have a RGB or BGR Ylem-Template).

We can now define a lower limit for the MicroBlack Holes.

Using 2Re as de Broglie wavelength: Mmin=h/(2Re.c)=hc/e*=4x10^-28 kg*

This is near the protonucleonic mc=9.924724523x10^-28 kg* and in a

way defines the Mean Protonic Radius as Rp=Re/2=1.38888..x10^-15 m*.

This is modulated by the de Broglie wavelength for the minimum given

in 4x10^-28 kg* and a maximum provided by mc.Y^n for any cycletime n.

A nucleonic mass Mn so is finestructered in its square via the ex-

pression:

Mn(1).Y^[i].Mn(2).Y^[j], where [i+j]=n and the nucleonseed is mc^2 [Eq.#15].

The energies associated with nucleonic point-masses, become then

monopolically mapped onto the supermembrane spectrum and manifest as

the spectrum of the Cosmic Rays above 0.2240957256 GeV* as MicroBlack

Holes or some other VPE-associated labelling.

Love from the DragonHeart!

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17128 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17128

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, george ryazanov
<george_ryazanov@y...> wrote:
> Chip!
> Real trajectory of electron have many turning points in
time. We see interference between different copies of the same
electron. See www.physics-of-unity.com
>
George

Hi Chip!

I concur with George here; the most intricate cosmologies habve
known for a long time that really only ONE particle should exist to
correlate the energy density in the 'vacuum' with the mathematical
models describing it.
But if there is only one electron, how then are there so 10^80
particles in the universe? (not counting neutrinos)?

Answer: The universe must be considered as a macroquantum particle
on its own scale.
Then the universe becomes a superphoton, a superparticle/wavelet of
some sort (the speed of light then becomes a Standing Wave of
displacement X=ct=(-c)(-t)) and manifests the waveparticle duality.

Then the subuniverses, which partition the universe as itself, also
become holograms of the universde as itself.
Eventually you will find the omniscientific duality in the Hydrogen
Atom, one proton and one electron providing the building blocks in
polarity, leading to all sorts of quantum dichotomies.

Invoking the higher dimensionality as local superpositions, then
result in multiple versions of the same quantumunity, as expressed
by George's multiplicity of initially massless electrons.

Tony B.
>
> Chip Atchison <chip_atchison@h...> wrote:
>
> Japanese scientist in the late '80s were able to produce an
interference pattern by firing individual electrons through the
double slit onto a screen. My question is:
>
> How can a single electron, fired individually through the double
slit, form an interference pattern when there are no other electrons
to cancel out the electron speeding through the chamber?
>
> I am confused because to form a blank spot in an interference
pattern two waves or wavelike particles have to hit each other 180
degress opposite in phase. But since there is only one electron in
the chamber there is no collison between two particles.
>
> thanks in advance,
>
> Chip
>

Message 17133 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17133

The proposition for the constancy of the speed of light in SR,
directly leads to the premises of GR in the orthogonality
considerations of the curvature of space and time.

In a rotating frame of reference say, an uniformly rotating disc will experience Lorentz-Contraction on the perimeter (say more rulers, length L fit into the perimeter 2Pi.R, than rulers L' in a bird's eye frame) in the tangential direction of motion.

The radius vecor will however remain constant as the normal vector to the tangent vector, describing the differential geometry.

This will increase the perimeter to exceed 2Pi.R relative to the L-measurement and result in a slioght hyperbolic curvature or warping of the invariant radius vector relative to the tangent vector.

GR, as a consequence of SR would not work, if 'c' could change.
The unfortunate deductions of many relativity critics are based on
certain misunderstandings relating to properties of waves.

It goes like this.

Should you consider a wavefront propagating, then this wavefront
occupies what is called 'metric' spacetime, subject to measurement
by clocks in temporal parameters and by rulers (say) in displacement
parameters.

One can now invoke the wave-particle duality subject to those
measurements.

The postulates of both SR and GR hold in this 'metric' scenario.

A close investigation of GR leads to a summation of metrics.
There is the Weyl-tensor, which does not change volume, but produces
a tidal effect of deformation, (say like squeezing a baloon).
The Weyl-tensor describes Einsteinian Gravity as the Newtonian
redefinition/replacement.

Then there is the Ricci-tensor which with the g-metric does change
the volume in contraction.
Contracting volume for constant mass implies greater density and is
the effect of inward acceleration (of the particles/wavelets).
So the Ricci-curvature measures the volume reduction due to inward
pressure.
Subsequently the density defined in GR-terms tells you
how 'particle' are accelerated inwards at a tensor-point. This is
very similar to Newtonian gravitation.

Next consider GR's extension in superstring theory.

Four extended spacetime dimensions (Minkowski metric) together with
a 'curled up'/conifolded 6D Calabi-Yau space provide a whole class
of solutions in the string equations.
For a 'flat'/uncurved 4D-spacetime, the string solutions must admit
a Ricci-flat metric.
If we split spacetime into its Cartesian product of 4D Minkowski and
6D Kaehler space; the Ricci flatness is equivalent to the Kaehler
space being a Calabi-Yau manifold.

Now all this is formidable mathematics and rather complicated.
Why? Because it still uses a 'metric' background matrix for the
strings as vibration patterns to oscillate/move around in.

Now enter the ONTOLOGY FOR MODERN PHYSICS.

What is this metaphysics?
It is none other than what many here aspire to, a reformulation and
significant simplification of what has been discussed above.

1.We require a DEMETRICATED model for space and time.
2.We revisit the wavefront picture as a kind of fluid motion.
3.We allow the SCALE RELATIVITY of a DEMETRICATED model to define
the metrics as then given by SR and GR.
4. We have blended the METRICATED UNIVERSE with the ONTOLOGICAL
SCALERELATIVE UNIVERSE.
5.The dissidents are vindicated, as well as the establishmenters.

Allow me to elucidate the wavefronts in regards to the constancy
of 'c' now.

Louis de Broglie's Matter Waves are linked to the atomic/subatomic
scales via a beautiful relationship.
The Classical Electron Radius (Thomson Scattering) is proportional
to the Compton Radius (for subatomic particles) in the factor Alpha.
Alpha is the Electromagnetic Finestructure Constant, say used in
Quantim Mechanics to denote the probability of light (photon)
interacting with matter (say electron).

But there is a Group-Velocity ALWAYS < c, confirming SR and GR;
and a Phase-Velocity ALWAYS > c.

Planck's E=hf=hc/L, L the wavelength and Einstein's E=mc^2 then
relate the (de Broglie) PhaseSpeed in the following way to the
GroupSpeed: VdB=Lf=(h/mv)(mc^2/h)=c^2/v > c for all v<c.

So the PhaseSpeed can be used to SCALE a new extended form of
relativity, namely Quantum Relativity.

Special Relativity is based on the principle of relativity, relating
to clocks and rulers, relative measurements in NO ABSOLUTE FRAME OF
REFERENCE for inertialframes of reference, that is uniform
nonaccelerated motion.

General Relativity is based on the principle of equivalence, the
indistinguishability of acceleration as non-inertial frame from the
effect of gravitation as given by the Weyl- and Ricci tensors.

Both SR and GR postulate the constancy of 'c' in all frames of
references and as measured by the 'metricated' clocks and rulers.

Quantum Relativity is based on the principle of demetricated CMF-
Theory, which EMERGES as higher dimensional 10-11-12=C-M-F-spacetime
upon metrication in the scalerelativity DEFINING itself.

Allow me to point this forum to C. Johan Masreliez, a npa-member.

I have posted Johan's file onto the files section for all to have
access to.

Now Johan's work is as much dissident as my own.
I presume he will support my position fully.

But Johan has been published and I present his work (Apeiron Journal)
in the files.
This is a highly technical paper, relating the scale evolution of
the universe AS A METRICATED scenario.
But it serves to show you how the premises of both SR and GR are
extended in between the Einsteinian formalism and the superstring
scenario.
Johan's work can serve as a bridge for all of us to show the way to
the 'establishment' of just how GR and SR are extended, without the
complexities of superbrane mathematics using the metric background.

All are invited to participate in the paradigm of Quantum
Relativity as outlined above.
Bye for now Tony B.

PS.: I am experiencing difficulties uploading this pdf-file.

Perhaps contacting Johan Masreliez could help anyone interested.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO1PDF/V12N1.MAS.pdf

This file can be accessed at my own site below in Documents under Apeiron.

Love from the DragonHeart!

ARMAGEDDON=DRAGONMADE=ANDROMEDAG=MARRY7=GODNAMEDRA=82 =666+1=1+2+3+...34+35+36+1=1+2.2+3.3+5.5+7.7+11.11+13.13+17.17

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17137 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17137

From Theoretical_physics:

> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
tmpl=story&cid=96&e=7&u=/space/blackholegrowthselflimitingsimulations
hows
>
> "We've discovered that the energy released by black
> holes during a quasar phase powers a strong wind that
> prevents material from falling into the black hole,"
> said Volker Springel at the Max-Planck Institute for
> Astrophysics. "This process inhibits further black
> hole growth and shuts off the quasar, just as star
> formation stops inside a galaxy. As a result, the
> black hole mass and the mass of stars in a galaxy are
> closely linked."
> ---------

Dear Allen, Roy and Forums!

The ratio between Black Hole Core and the coronal bulge is always
found to be about 0.2 %.
This links to certain subatomic decay patterns of short/long neutral
Kaons, violating CP-symmetries.
About 1 in 500 decaypatterns which should be a 3particle decay
becomes a 2particle decay.
This in a way links to the Maxwell Vector where two parallel
spinning leptons (say electron/positron pair) must decay into at
least 3 photons to conserve spin-angular momentum.
Two oppositely such spinning entities (it also relates to quarks in
gluon jets) result in oppositely spinning pi-mesons, say.

As in my white hole/black hole post then, the underpinning process
is one of exchanging the elementery ylemic colourcharged blueprints.

Until the mainstream physicists accept, that the gauge photon of the
electromagnetic interaction is colourcharged (as is the graviton and
the gluon RESULTING in Roy Wolford's Trinity of elementary
interactions), they will miss this phenomena of inflow-outflow as
exhibited by the dyadic couplings between black holes and white
holes.

I repeat, three of the elementary interactions carry the same gauge-
bosonic blueprint, differing in spin: sourcephoton for electromag-
netism(spin +1); graviton for gravity(spin -2) and gluon for strong
interaction(spin +1).
Those three are unified RGB+RGB+BGR cancelling spin, but manifesting
RGB.
This RGB neutralises in the weak interaction template, initially
massless as BGR(+1), becomes Higgs-RestmassInduced by the Ylem-
template (YYCCMM+RRRRGGGGBBBB)(spin0); exchanges spin with it and is
then neutralised in the RestMassPhoton RMP(spin -1) as the only
supersymmetric particle required to harmonise the unified field.

The RMP could be identified with the Axion or a WIMP or such label.

But this colour permutation,as the charging of mass as natural
current equivalents is what occurs also on the largest cosmic
scales, where Quasars couple Radiation with Antimatter as Output and
Black Holes couple Antiradiation with Matter as Input.
The details manifest the unified field on all scales.

Tony B.

Love from the DragonHeart!

ARMAGEDDON=DRAGONMADE=ANDROMEDAG=MARRY7=GODNAMEDRA=82 =666+1=1+2+3+...34+35+36+1=1+2.2+3.3+5.5+7.7+11.11+13.13+17.17

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17139 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17139

Quantum Spin is the INTRISIC ANGULAR MOMENTUM of a particle (or groups of particles), expressed as s.h/2Pi, with s the spin quantum number either +1/2(up) or -1/2(down).

Because such a 'spinning electron' behaves like a small magnet (due to its rotating charge), this electron carries INTRINSIC MAGNETIC MOMENTUM [Magneton=ep/2m=jeh/4pi.m].

This relates the INTRINSIC MAGNETIC MOMENT (IMM), the angular momentum expressed in the form of ms(h/2pi) with ms from (s,(s-1),..,-s).

Thus for the electron this IMM=(+/-)h/4.pi (as in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle).

The component of the electron's spin angular momentum along the field direction (of an applied magnetic field) then is given aboveas the SPACE QUANTIZATION for the electron, precessing about the direction vector of the applied magnetic field.

These 'intrinsic properties' are supplementary to the atomic orbital quantum numbers (n, l and m), say characterising the electron configuartions in order n-principal, azimuthal-l and magnetic-m, characterisiong the Pauli Exclusion principle and atomic parameters.

The importance of all this is, that spin angular momentum is subject to the conservation laws; the clockwise (quantum torques) must balance their anticlockwise counterparts within a system of conserved energy distribution.

Colour Charge is a MAGNETIC PROPERTY (in my models as derivative of the magnetocharges mapping electrocharges via subtimespace); but the Standard Models also ascribe this as Magnetic-Colourcharge-Confinement for the quarks, mediated by the gluons. So anyone accepting the quark-lepton models also is familiar with colourcharges as confinement parameter in QuantuChromoDynamics (QCD).

So from before, you see the magnetic selfinduction as a primary constituent in the unified field.

The Standard Model uses the colours as primary triplets and colour/anticolour doublets, amounting to the same thing. Black<->White exchange; that is either radiation changes into mass or vice versa (via Pair-Annihilation/Creation) .

Just reading about primary colours will fill you in.

Red+Green=Yellow in Radiation (this is how the TV makes Yellow from Red and Green). This is ADDITIVE.

In PAINT mixing YELLOW and CYAN (SkyBlue) gives GREEN as AntiColour to MAGENTA and so on. This is SUBTRACTIVE (grass is greenm, because all other colour frequencies are absorbed, only green is reflected).

ADDITIVE gives you WHITE and SUBTRACTIVE BLACK in triplet form.

All this is appropriate for quarks and leptons, because the mesonic-intermediary state can be described as colourcharges being symmetry groups SU(2,3), say.

So BBY^2 describes a Vortex/Meson (spin0) because BGR (anticyclic) mixes with RGB (cyclic) as (R+B)(G+G)(B+R)=MGGR=BYYB=RCCY say.

Because quarks mix with antiquarks, the result is matter+antimatter=intermediary state = shortlived VPE=Vortex-Potential-Energy=ZPE becomes 2 photons, moving apart in opposite directions with opposite spins.

All is conservation laws.

Tony B.

Love from the DragonHeart!

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

Message 17140 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17140

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Byron Duncan"
<zeusrdx@y...> wrote:
>
> Many thanks for this one Tony.
>
> I posted one of the links, in this one, on my web page and
entirely
> changed the wording on my web site because of it.
>
> I'll post it all tomorrow here.
>
> It will read: Thank you Tony Bermanseder.
>
> Thanks again
>
> z
>
Dear Zeus!

I haven't thanked you for your very kind comments on your own site.
I apologise for the delay, but you know better.
My only aim is to unite the forums to help bringing about a new
unified science, able to stop the other 'madness' in the arenas of
politics and fundamentalist religions.
Only a unified new world view as regards to human purpose can
achieve this (not including an alien invasion as another possibility
in that regard).

Thanking You.
I am pleased to help your forum and its many contributors.

Tony B.
>
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "TONY BERMANSEDER"
> <PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:
> >

Message 17152 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17152

INTRODUCTION - Considering the present state of Modern Physics!

Consider two armies fighting each other.
On the right side are the Dissidents, advocvating a change to the constancy of lightspeed 'c' to accomodate certain experimental results.
On the left side are the Conformists, advocating to retain the constancy of
lightspeed 'c' and to find alternative explanations for the experimental results.

Both the Dissidents and the Conformists consider themselves 'right'and the other camp
'wrong'.

Then a new strategy or battle-plan emerges with the following proviso for both camps.

Both camps are either both 'right' and 'wrong' or 'wrong'and 'right' simultaneously.
The war can stop.
Any camp continuing 'fighting' will know that that IT is 'wrong'; thus the course of action becomes to unite the 'right' with the 'wrong' within the context of a new theory encompassing both the 'right' and the 'wrong' assumptions.

What are the 'right' and 'wrong' assumptions and how are they unified?
This forms the context of the following discussion.

Dear Joseph!

You are misconstruing SR here and misappropriating the path lengths x=ct; the
Lorentz Contraction is always in the direction of motion and as measured by a stationary observer relative to that motion.
But you should see your misconceptions about Lorentz Contraction in the following derivation of the relative pathlengths.

You wrote:

...Imo, this is a non-explanation.

I hope the following is more elucidating.

...If we consider a circular path being approximated by a polygon with
...many sides, each side is NOT moving wrt the BEO. Rather, the light
...beam is moving between vertices of the polygon. This is NOT a moving
...rod scenario, so we cannot apply the length contraction of SR.

But it is. Say a ruler length L in the BEO is measured as L'=k.L (for k<1) in the
Frame of the Perimeter (for which the polygon-steps are a simple linear approximation for the derivative).
For simplicity say that exactly N rulers length L fit the perimeter,measured as 2Pi.R by the BEO.
This renders the PATHLENGTH as N.L.Sqrt[1-v^2/c^2], as observed by the BEO, v being the tangential velocity v=w.R.

NOTE: This is the PATHLENGTH of the Lorentz-Contracted Perimeter Frame, which then is subjected to the PathLength of the Light, independent of the rulers, but defined in it as the relative frame.

This also means that the BEO measures Lorentz Contraction for the entire perimeter
moving at uniform angular speed w (in steps of ruler L' say).
The BEO could be anywhere in the 'lab'-frame, considering itself to be at rest relative to the uniformly rotating disk. This clarifies your OTOH point below.

...OTOH, if you want to claim that the BEO is at *rest* while the lab is rotating ...around the BEO, one can claim that every point in the lab can be a BEO (non ...rotating), so the lab as a whole isn't rotating! --
...which contradicts the fact that it is (rotating).

Here is your contradiction. The lab-frame is NOT rotating relative to the stationary BEO, who IS the lab-frame, relative to the perimeter frame.

...Moreover, even if we could apply the shortening implied by SR, it surely would ...*not* solve the problem. Presumably, you want to shorten/contract the circular
...path length to compensate for the longer than expected circuit time, without
...which contraction, a SoL greater than c would be implied. (This is case of light ...going around the circuit in the *same* sense/direction as the rotation of the lab
...frame.) But then the same *shortening* would apply to a light beam moving in the ...reverse direction, where the time for a complete circuit is *less* than expected ...based on light velocity of c.
...In this case, we must INCREASE the path length to compensate for the shorter
...circuit time if we are preserve c as the SoL. But afaik, the Lorentz contraction ...never increases the length of a moving rod.

Whatever gave you those ideas? What you are trying to say IS SR.

We use rotation of the disk as ClockWise CW.

For a nonrotating perimeter frame (also BEO frame): Time(CW)=Time(CCW)=2pi.R/c;
PathLength=2pi.R=c.Time(C..)

For a rotating frame: Time(CW)=N.L.Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/{c-v} relative to BEO;
PathLength(CW)=c.Time(CW)=N.LSqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/[1-v/c]

Time(CWW)=N.L.Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/{c+v} relative to BEO;
PathLength(CCW)=c.Time(CCW)
=N.LSqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/[1+v/c]<PathLength(CW).

NOTE: Here the PathLength is modified by SR relative to the Lorentz-Contracted PATHLENGTH.

Because the Lorentz-Contraction is applicable to the entire perimeter as indicated, resulting in a warping of spacetime relative to the BEO (increasing the perimeter as hyperbolic curvature relative to a fixed radius vector); a difference in time and of corresponding pathlength and of magnitude (CW-CCW) is predicted by SR for a BEO observer as described.

Furthermore, SR predicts the following scenario.
A clock situated at radial distances from the rotating disk's centre to the perimeter
must experience time dilation relative to a clock situated at the outer limit of the system.

Here the BEO's time is that relative to the radial observer experiencing increased acceleration by moving outwards from the centre.

Because radial distance increases in proportion to tangential velocity,the faster speed implies a slowing down of time to compensate for the increase in acceleration experienced.
This is the warping of time and space, increasing for any acceleration as the force of gravitation as geometrical differential geometry of General Relativity.

General Relativity prediction, directly from the Special Relativity discussion above:

Time can slow down with increased acceleration, equivalent to the experience of more gravitational force.

..The rotating perimeter could also be considered Lorentz Contracting, then cancelling ..the ruler's Lorentz-Contraction, relative to the bird's Eye observer (BEO); but the ..FOR is the BEO (WHO IN A SENSE DOES BECOME AN ABSOLUTE FOR, RELATIVE ..TO ITSELF).
...This is the nonrotating scenario without Lorentz Contraction.
...This is the reason behind the socalled null/non-null effects.

This I should have said is the nonrotating perimeter frame above without relative motion.

... Imo, from what you have written, you haven't touched the problem. As
... I've shown above, one cannot apply SR to this problem, at least in the form you ...did -- and even if you could, it wouldn't help.
...As for your remarks about GR, I will study them, consult with my attorney,
...and respond if I have something worthwhile to say. For now, please try to fix you ...SR 'solution' or acknowledge that it can't work.

...TY, JS

Well, one can observe certain phenomena and reach certain conclusions.
Models can be built to explain the phenomena. Nature is never untruthful about itself, however disguised the parametrical connections and 'hidden' variables might appear.

SR and GR have a theoretical foundation, which is both beautiful and elegant in
connecting intrinsically complex mathematical concepts to amazingly simple geometrical
underpinnings.

The mystery of creation is unravelled however in a synthesis of the tested and provable models; not discarding what is found incomplete in parts, but extending the old in the new.

SR and GR, both work and are here to be built upon by future modelbuilders.
The extension of GR is found in a demetricated form of M-Theory, which by its very nature must consider the scale-relative nature of the universe in the Relativity of the Quantum, which MUST incorporate both SR and GR as metricated form of itself.

ONE DOESN'T CHANGE LIGHTSPEED 'c' BUT THE PATHLENGTH DECSRIBED BY IT!
SR then leads directly to GR, which lead to Quantum Relativity or QR, leading back to SR, conmpleting the Circle of Deduction.

Here IT goes - the qualitative description for Quantum Relativity!

Anyone is invited to use this qualitative foundation, dressing IT up USING SR and GR to once and for all DEFINE the parameters for QR in its appropriate formalisms.

Go For It!

Unfortunately I am not academically trained enough to apply this appropriate formalism and scientific nomenclature. Perhaps one of the readers can do this.
But the following will indicate the basic parameters to use.

The stationary BEO must, by its own self-definition (Eigenstate) measure a positive and elliptically closed curvature for any dynamic interpretation for a moving Frame of Reference, relative to this self-defined stationary Eigenstate.

This is the effect of Lorentz-Contraction, normal to the Eigenstate, described in SR.

This positive curvature is PRECISELY balanced in the negative hyperbolic curvature of the Lorentz-contracted Frame of Reference as manifestation of GR.

In a uniformly rotating Frame of Reference,an invariant radius vector is warped relative to the tangent vector, resulting in a hyperbolic curvature relative to the rotating frame (Perimeter is measured as exceeding 2Pi.R by an observer in that frame).

This superimposition of curvatures is described in Einstein's Field Equations, say
in the Friedmann Formulation of the Riemann Tensor:

Ruv-guv.R/2 = -8Pi.G.Tuv/c^2 -> Rc^2(dot)(+/-)Rc^2 = 4GM.Rc/3Pi.c^2

QR transforms this in demetrication to:
Rmax/(n+1){1/[n(n+1)^2] (+/-) n} = 2GM/c^2 = R(n)[1/T^2(n) (+/-) 1], which is the Schwarzschild Solution as generalised Wormhole-Sarkar (Minimum/Maximum) evolution.
Here n=Proper TauTime via Rc=c.dt/dTau as the Curvature Pathlength.
Scale-Relative 'cycletime' n is also defined in dn/dt=Ho as a 'nodal' Hubble Constant
fixed in a BEO-relative inflation at the wormhole instanton.

This superpositioning the reattains the Eigendefinition of the BEO observing a perfectly Euclidean flat and uncurved environment.
The following 'school-boy' geometry exemplifies this superposition of curvatures within the context of FMC-Theory.

Allow me to indicate the dimensional orthogonality in quantum
geometric terms. This should help in elucidating the confusions
about higher dimensional spaces, as proposed in superbrane theories.

The First Dimension is called a 1-brane and utilises the 0-brane as
generator of itself.

This Zero-Dimension becomes an equidistant displacement from some
origin, let us call it Wolford-Centre about which some abstract or
imaginary radius could be drawn, say to negative and positive
infinity. Let us term this the Y-axis, following conventional
denotation.

This imaginary displacement is modelled as the Planck-Length in
contemporary physics, but could theoretically be some other parameter
of minimal and quantisable displacement.

Now consider the Wolford-Centre to be the origin for the positive
and the negative Y-coordinate.
A simultaneous expansion from this Wolford-Centre, say to +a and -a
as displacement coordinates then defines the diameter of a circle
radius a in the XY-plane say.
This is the 1-sphere in brane quantum geometry, defined as the locus
of an equidistant point from the Wolford-Centre or origin.

Rotating the 1-sphere into the Z-plane then generates the 2-sphere
as the 2-brane, defined as the locus of an equidistant point from
the Wolford-Centre and as the surface of a sphere with radius a.

Now the question as to the origin of the Z-axis as orthogonality to
the XY-plane arises.

We return to the 0-brane and its definition to examine orthogonality
of X to Y to Z.

To generate the 1-sphere, the Wolford-Centre extended itself
simultaneously into the positive and negative Y-directions.

We qualify this and allow the positive Y-coordinate to describe a
halfcircle, say the X-positive XY-plane for half the circle's or 1-
sphere's surface area.

We introduce orthogonality in phaseshifting the negative Y-
coordinate in say rotation by 90 degrees to define the positive Z-
axis and obtain a subsequent halfcircle in the positive ZY-plane
with negative and positive z-coordinates.

The identity of the 1-sphere is then obtained in rotating the ZY-
halfplane 90 degrees anticlockwise as the ZY-plane with positive and
negative y-coordinates; followed by a clockwise 90 degree rotation
(into the -ve x-coordinated axis) as the X-negative XY-plane for the
then completed circle of the 1-sphere.

This manipulation of the 0-brane to construct the 1-brane introduces
the complex number plane to the real number plane and represents the
physical significance for the representation of physical parameters
in the Argand Diagrams of Vectors representing metricated systems.

The underpinning quantum geometry deriving from this is
the 'Twisting of Space', say in the Moebius Strip and the Klein
Bottle, leading directly to the quantisation of space in toroidal
spacevolumars.

To obtain a torus, one of only three minimally connected manifold
topologies (Plane, Catenoid, Helicoid), the plane is folded to meet
opposing edges. Pasting say upper and lower edges and then
folding/curving the resulting tube to join left and right edges
gives the torus/doughnut topology, which is not simply connected,
but multiconnected.

To obtain a Klein Bottle, one joins left and right edges but then
only the lower edge is folded with the upper edge becoming
'stretched' gooseneckwise and twisted in the 0-brane/1-brane
transform to othogonally 'meet' a 'wormhole' point someplace
on the OUTER surface of the folded tube of the right and left
connection.
Now the INNER surface connects to the initially folded lower edge
stretching towards this wormhole connection from the INSIDE.
Connecting the INSIDE gooseneck to the OUTSIDE gooseneck then
renders the Klein Bottle as a ONESIDED SURFACE or Manifold as the
EXTENDED FORM of the Moebius Strip.
And because the Klein Bottle is a torus derivative (via the folding
mechanism), the cosmology of toroidal spacequanta is applicable.

The 3-sphere or 3-brane hence becomes a Riemannian Hypersphere as a
3-dimensional surface, which also is a 4-dimensional
volume, connected by the curvature factor 3pi/2 (derived in a
previous post).
The 3-brane also depicts the rotation of the 2-sphere, incorporating
the orthogonality as described to combine the negative and positive
curvatures in summation to Euclidean perfect flatness.

Tony B.

Love from the DragonHeart!

ARMAGEDDON=DRAGONMADE=ANDROMEDAG=MARRY7=GODNAMEDRA=82 =666+1=1+2+3+...34+35+36+1=1+2.2+3.3+5.5+7.7+11.11+13.13+17.17

http://au.msnusers.com/quantumrelativity

This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.