Re: A UNIFIED UNIVERSE
- From: "Vert" <vergon@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 10 Dec 2006 12:33:42 -0800
Sue... wrote:
Vert wrote:
Does this make sense?
Einstein worked 35 years on his unified field theory and did not
succeed.
He is reputed to have said, "Well at least I proved it couldn't be
done."
One could say he was attempting to describe the whole universe in one
mathematical expression --- or maybe it was just the forces of the
universe, I'm not sure.
What is an odd circumstance is that I have developed a theory that
quite by accident happens to parallel Einstein's goal. He was
attempting to unify the universe mathematically --- my theory does it
by means of a physical model.
It reveals there is a single particle that is the building block of the
universe.
This is accomplished in a fractile-like manner. Matter and radiation
are both composed of this particle. Certain characteristics of this
particle give rise to the electric, magnetic, strong and gravitational
forces.
<< Fractals is one such example. Chess and the ancient
Chinese game of Go are others. The thickest novel,
composed of only twenty six letters, is another. >>
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/vergon.pdf
There might be application for some fractal maths below
the surface of gravitational sources:
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0107015
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
"Tajamr-de Matos"
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
I would expect it is a bit more than a Chinese game, however.
Abstract
The interaction energy between two dissimilar non-ionized
molecules or atoms is calculated in fourth-order perturbation
theory and dipole approximation. The interaction Hamiltonian
involves the charge distribution with the complete Maxwell
field and not only the Coulomb interaction between charges.
At close separations between the two systems (still large
compared with molecular diameters) the interaction energy
is of course that corresponding to the London force. However,
for separations large compared with the characteristic
wavelengths associated with transitions within the molecules
the London force is modified considerably. In the case of two
molecules in the ground state this modification was first found
by Casimir & Polder. If one of the molecules is in an excited
state new effects appear at these large distances. The energy
of interaction depends on the orientation of the transition moment
in the excited molecule with respect to the vector displacement
between the two systems. In both transverse and longitudinal
orientations the potential law is considerably stronger than the
R-7 of the ground state-ground state interaction. For transverse
orientations there is an unmodulated R-2 energy dependence
which though very weak individually could give rise to considerable
effects when the excited molecule is in a macroscopic
environment. >>
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965RSPSA.286..573M
Sue....
VERGON
Hi Sue,
Thank you for your reply and for the reference.
It is very interesting for it emphasizes the difference in the approach
to understanding our universe. The detail described in interactions is
impressive. But of course it is a small part of the spectrum of the
universe.
My work, in attempting to develop a physical model for the quantum,
turned out to embrace the entire universe --- as does the quantum. As I
state in my work, it is a skeletal construction that begs for the hand
of others with their particular expertise to fill in the gaps.
What I hope for is people with the expertise, such as the authors of
the referenced article, to use the the theory I developed rather than
the standard model.
The fact that my model is self consistent, consistent with empiricism,
and violates no accepted physical laws, merits a stature equal to (or
better) than any in existence today.
If you read it, you will see that it is a logical construction verified
by empirical data.
I say it is fractile-like because the entire universe is composed of
only one type particle that has five measurable characteristics(mass,
spin, pulsation, permeability and internal energy) --- it is the
interactions of these characteristics that creates the variety of the
universe.
The mathematics involved is mainly to quantify the model and,
therefore, is simple.
The work is based on one postulate. I also adhered to the following
precepts:
The theory has to be self consistent, consistent with empiricism, and
violate no well accepted laws of physics. Speculation is kept to a
minimum --- and always justified by a compatible result.
In spite of remaining within these boundaries, the theory more or less
creates a new paradigm in that many things in the present "standard
model" are disregarded. Acceptance of this theory does require an
open mind.
The title is, On the quantum as a Physical Entity. If one cares to look
at it, they will find it on line in the General Science Journal at
http://www.wbabin.net
Go to LIST OF AUTHORS and click on Vertner Vergon.
As an alternative, I will email a copy to anyone requesting it.
vergon.@xxxxxxxxx
.
- References:
- A UNIFIED UNIVERSE
- From: Vert
- Re: A UNIFIED UNIVERSE
- From: Sue...
- A UNIFIED UNIVERSE
- Prev by Date: Re: A UNIFIED UNIVERSE
- Next by Date: Re: Gravitation as a fourth order electromagnetic effect
- Previous by thread: Re: A UNIFIED UNIVERSE
- Next by thread: Re: A UNIFIED UNIVERSE
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
