APOCALYPTIC PHYSICS
The SKYBOLT^{TM} technology owes its emergence to a New and Apocalyptic
Physics. Physics as a scientific enterprise seeks to come to
a knowledge of the universe and foundational to the idea of the
existence of such knowledge is the belief that there is ultimately
some means to qualitatively evaluate any knowledge which is generated
by socalled scientific activities. Implicitly from epistemological
considerations is the idea that some knowledge is of a greater
quality than others and this stems from the idea that there exists
absolute Truth as the ideal. Without the application of reasonable
epistemological tests to determine the quality of any knowledge,
then knowledge would have no inherent level of quality and one
could not discern between pseudoknowledge and true knowledge.
But with Truth as the ideal and logic as a guide and God as the
revealer of mysteries one can come to understand the universe.
This new physics has a number of characteristics
which distinguish it from mainstream physics.
A) This physics is not based upon the idea
of continuous structures or continuum based
'field theory'. See :Potentials
Einstein, in
the year before his death expressed grave misgivings about the
validity of continuum based physics in a letter to his lifelong
friend Michele Besso by writing:
"I consider it quite possible that
physics cannot be based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire castle
in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of
modern physics." Albert
Einstein in a 1954 letter to Besso, quoted from: Subtle is the
Lord, Abraham Pais, page 467.
By the time that Einstein began to realize the
tremendous intellectual blunder which was at the root and heart
of continuum based physics, fully a generation of physicists
had spent a great part of their lives articulating and rearticulating
the fundamentals of 'field theory' in countless books
and journals and academic courses so that the foundations of
modern physics were not even considered to be suspect but rather
were so axiomatic in nature that it was considered to be evidence
that one was 'daft' to seriously raise any question against it.
New advances were reckoned not to be legitimately found by questioning
the root and foundation of modern physics but only supposedly
by extending the theory.
B) This physics is based upon understanding
the nature of the most elementary component of the universe to
be a discrete velocity potential. And the concept of a discrete
velocity potential emerges from the basic idea that all motion
is relative coupled together with the notion of the existence
of discrete entities known as particles or quanta.
C) This physics utilizes the topology of a
torus to express the compact manifold
geometry of the universe. It is only in this geometry where physical
and mathematical concepts such as curl and divergence (both important
aspects of Maxwell's equations) can be fully articulated. This
topology provides the vehicle for the full expression of the
velocity potential which then allows for the concept of charge
to emerge as a function of dynamics and geometry. The unit charge
then emerges naturally as a new type of metric (for counting
purposes) which is seen to be composed of a finite number
(n1) of velocity potentials in a universe of n particles.
In a universe of n particles in a compact manifold of
toroidal geometry we see that particles must evolve as charge
conjugate pairs, and not as particle antiparticle pairs. We
also see that a charged particle pair as a double toroidal structure
forms the perfect Archetype of the
universe. From this Archetype structure
we see the emergence of a complete and final physics.
D) This physics depends upon the reality that
Coulomb's Law is, in fact, a 'special case'
which describes the interactions of charged particles
only when they meet specific criteria. The 'General Case'
, which is established by this physics, specifies all
charged particle interactions the general expression of which
in four simple parts is:
1) "If like charged fundamental
particles have a common
de Broglie wavelength greater than or equal to the interparticle
distance then they will attractively interact."
2) "If unlike charged fundamental
particles have a common de Broglie wavelength greater
than or equal to the interparticle distance then they will repulsively
interact."
3) "If like charged fundamental
particles have a common de Broglie wavelength less than
the interparticle distance then they will repulsively interact."
4) "If unlike charged fundamental
particles have a common de Broglie wavelength less than
the interparticle distance then they will attractively interact."
Parts three and four correspond to Coulomb's
Law but they are subsumed under the 'General Case'
.
This 'General Case' is part
of the foundation for a new and Apocalyptic Physics.
Now, first instincts are to rebel at such
a 'General Case' until we recognize that it fits
the facts for the nuclei of atoms and that it fits the facts
for superconduction. Why, we might ask, should a proton be bound
to a neutron? The simplest response is that we must first recognize
that a neutron is a gravitational source particle, that is, it
is a charge and its conjugate in superposition and hence produces
a time rate gradient structure the toroidal axis of which
is the gravitational terminus of this monolithic gravitational
source particle. Elementary charged particles respond to a gravitational
source particle but they are not true monolithic gravitational
source particles themselves. The gravitational terminus is a
low energy state and a quantum axiom is that every quantum particle
will obtain to the lowest energy state available. So, protons
naturally are obtaining to the lowest energy state available
by becoming as colocated as possible with any nearby neutron.
Nature of Inertial Mass
The questions that have long been in men's minds
'Why is the Proton so much more massive than the electron?' and
'What is the origin of this quality that we call inertial mass?'
can easily be answered through the application of deductive logic
using intuition and data.
Inertial mass is the result of large numbers
of like charged quantum particles overlapping in momentum space.
It can be shown that when like charged particles are overlapping
in momentum space that they behave as if they were strongly attractively
interactive. In fact, they are not attractively interactive with
respect to each other but pairs of like charged particles that
are overlapping in momentum space create a low energy state structure
with a sharp gradient. It is as if their combined presence produces
a super null energy point, a deep energy hole, so to speak, towards
which the pair of like charged particles will both fall in obedience
to the quantum axiom that all quantum particles will obtain to
the lowest energy state available. Every charged particle is,
therefore, falling towards many common null points produced by
itself and every other particle of the same sign that is overlapping
in momentum space with it. Consider the set n of all particles
in the universe where n is the total number of particles in the
universe. Consider that there are k sets of j number of particles
of the same sign where each set consists of j number of particles
that are all overlapping in the same momentum space but that
individual particles in any set are not overlapping with particles
of another set. This means that there are (k1)*j or jkj particles
that are not overlapping in the same momentum space as any single
given particle in any set. We will name the particles of that
group of jkj particles set C and the individual particles in
set C can be numbered C_{1} through C_{jkj}.
A null point is produced by the intersection of the vector fields
∇ X H_{A} and ∇ X H_{B}
that are produced by the pair of particles (that meet the criteria
of overlapping in momentum space) with respect to the relative
motion of any particle in the set C of particles that has some
component of its relative motion with respect to A and B as a
normal to any plane that contains both A and B. Consider that
there are very many particles in the set C that each of which
will have some component of its relative motion with respect
to A and B that is a normal to a plane containing both A and
B. For each particle in set C that meet that criteria will be
produced a pair of vector fields emanating from the apparent locations
of A and B from the reference frame of that third particle in
the set C of particles. The intersection of those pairs of vector
fields which can be numbered ∇ X H_{A}_{C1}
and ∇ X H_{B}_{C1}
through ∇ X H_{A}_{Cjkj}
and ∇ X H_{B}_{Cjkj}
produce a very steep null motion gradient structure towards which
the pairs will fall. Consider that each particle is falling
towards j1 such null points each of which from a reference frame
or coordinate space of that particle where that particle is at
the origin lies in some distinct and unique direction so that
the end result is that the particle tends to remain localized
with respect to any observer in the same frame. This is equivalent
to the particle being pulled in many directions at once with
the result being that it does not go easily in any particular
direction without substantial changes to its momentum with respect
to any observer. This is the nature of inertial mass. If there
is some means by which a larger number of one species of charge,
say, positively charged particles, can achieve an unbalanced
number of particles that are overlapping in the same momentum
space with respect to the number of negatively charged particles
that are overlapping in the same momentum space, that naturally
translates to an immediate inertial mass difference between the
two species of charge (as in the mass difference between electrons
and protons). Once that inertial mass difference appears then
it becomes a global effect because the lower mass particles
will always have equal and opposite momenta with respect to the
higher mass particles then this state will remain a global
condition (throughout the universe). This all comes about considering
that a large scale flux loop structure is a time rate gradient
structure (monolithic gravitational source) and that it is able
to manufacture quantum scale copies of itself (neutrons) that naturally will
move towards the gravitational terminus axis (since that terminus is a low energy state location). The decay of that
particle into a charge and its conjugate will result in those
two overlapping in momentum space and the intersection of the
resultant vector fields will produce an energy hill away from
which both particles will move. The negatively charge particles
end up with low mass and are excluded from the gravitational
terminus region. The result is that all the particles that lie
along the gravitational terminus axis all occupy or all overlap
in the same momentum space while the excluded particles do not
so that this just means that the mass difference we detect between
protons and electrons is really related to the ratio between
the common momentum spaces available to each type of charge. More specifically there are larger numbers of one type of particle (protons) that are overlapping in any one momentum space than there are of the other type.
In the cores of stars, which really are standing wave boson structures,
we can expect to see the accumulation along the gravitational
terminus, which is the toroidal axis of the boson, of nothing but
neutrons and protons with the absolute exclusion of electrons.
That accumulation of mass I have elsewhere called an Isaacium
ring where Isaacium is that super dense matter that because it
is void of electrons also cannot emit photons. And note that it is super dense also because it is void of electrons and only has nuclear volume, not atomic volume that can be five or six orders of magnitude greater. This is the
very essence of what cosmologists and astrophysicists have called
'heavy dark matter'. I call it Isaacium because 'Isaac' in Hebrew
means the laughter of disbelief...and I have long believed that
upon hearing of the existence of Isaacium rings in the cores of stars, and in planets, and in stellar jet systems and in galatic cores that
most mainstream cosmologists and astrophysicists will, at first,
laugh in disbelief.
E. This physics, utilizing the discrete velocity
potential as the most elementary building block, allows one to
illustrate the existence of a 'null potential line' as the mapping
of a discrete velocity potential onto its conjugate. The Archetype structure is composed of
the complete metric set (n1) of such potentials and their
conjugates organized into a toroidal geometry. Such a geometry
where the potentials and their conjugates are mapped to a ring
produces a structure which can be characterized as consisting
of layers of closed equipotential surfaces of increasing curvature
(just as we assume charged particles have). Since each null line
is a null motion line we end up with null motion equipotential
surfaces. This structure then has a null motion gradient which
is the same thing as a 'timegradient' field. A 'timegradient'
field is a gravitational field. Thus we end up with a particle
which has the unit gravitational 'charge'.
F. This physics, utilizing the Archetype or Electromagnetotoroid (EMT) and showing that it oscillates between two current
modes, toroidal and poloidal, demonstrates that
fundamental charged particles, in a sense, are equivalent to
magnetic monopoles. This is demonstrated as the appearance and
disappearance of the simplest dipole is dependent wholly upon
the current vector mode of the Archetype, showing that when it
is toroidal the dipole appears and when it is poloidal the dipole
ceases to exist.
G. This physics, utilizing the Archetype , or EMT
illuminates some previously not well publicized shortcomings of Maxwell's Equations.
When written in terms of E and H only, the two equations that are related to the propagation of electromagnetic radiation are given as:
∇ X H = ε_{O} ^{∂E}/_{∂t}
∇ X E = μ_{O} ^{∂H}/_{∂t}
The problem is that there is an implicit toroidal geometry in these vector fields and that if one really examines the vectors which comprise these structures then it becomes apparent that something is truly missing because one cannot get from one vector field form to the other using this implicit geometry. Most electromagnetic engineering textbooks handwave students past this in their explanation of the propagation of electromagnetic radiation. Thus we see that these equations are necessarily empirical and this leaves a big puzzle because we see that these equations are, at least, the beginning and end points for the process of the propagation of EM quanta. What is going on and where are the equations that show the true transformation of the ∇ X H vector field into the ∇ X E vector field and vice versa? Here is where an amazing discovery enters. In searching for the transformation process whereby the flux density vector of a ∇ X H vector field can effectively accomplish what would be equivalent to the π/2 radian rotation around the axis of the Poynting vector at every point so that it can become transformed into the ∇ X E vector field or vice versa, it became apparent that two things were taking place. First, one sees that the Poynting vector must necessarily change directions from an inward pointing normal to the flux toroid to an outward pointing normal or vice versa. This implies a Poynting vector density change and such change if one identifies the Poynting vector with a discrete velocity potential then one sees that such a change implicitly would give rise to a ∇ X H vector field on the equipotential surface of the flux toroid. This expanding vector field...because it is constrained to a closed surface must necessarily self intersect. If the flux toroid is in the ∇ X E vector field mode then the magnetic flux density (B) is maximized along the poloidal axis and any vector field arising in that area will find that the shortest route to self intersection is around the poloidal axis at the inner equator. This immediately converts the rising vector field to a toroidal orientation and if this change is of sufficient magnitude then the entire flux toroid begins to be transformed. Examination of the secondary vectors shows us that a ∇ X E vector field will display the characteristics of a magnetic dipole and that a ∇ X H vector field will display the characteristics of an electric dipole. During the ∇ X H vector field vector field mode the flux toroid is self compacting and that any secondary vector fields that arise near the inner equator will intersect rapidly around the poloidal axis while the inner equator is at the quantum scale. This will produce copious quantities of quantum scale flux toroids that are in direct identity with neutrons. Thus, we see that there is revealed a matter creation mechanism in the cores of these vector fields...a matter creation mechanism that is really doing nothing but introducing new geometry into the universe and that is perfectly consistent with Noether's Theorem because each flux toroid can be seen to be a charge and its conjugate in superposition which establishes and maintains charge symmetry globally.
H. So we discover quite by intuition and logic (in G. above) a process that leads to the immediate conclusion of the generation of self similar
structures (to the Archetype) at various size scales from dense
current or dense flux elements and hence implies neutron creation from
any flux element which has a sufficiently fast positive change
in flux density.
I. This physics utilizing the toroidal geometry
of the Archetype shows that the
curl function of a poloidal flux vector is related
to particle spin.
J. Because of (I.) above, and the principle
that the propagation of a current requires the antiparallel propagation
of the current's conjugate (electron vs. electronhole) the Archetype , in a toroidal current mode,
is equivalent to spinup/spindown pairs of electrons (Cooper
Pairs) in superconduction.
K. Because of (I.) above and the identification
of the geometry of the Archetype with that of a neutron it is
determined that the net spin of a neutron
is zero which means that a neutron by definition must be a standing
wave boson; however, because of the extreme time rate gradient field
that exists as the core of the neutron is approached, the inner spin
state cannot be accessed nor demonstrated (except by the beta
decay of a neutron into a proton, electron, and antineutrino).
This analysis then implies that the antineutrino also must be
a boson.
L. Because of the elimination of continuous
structures that are replaced by discrete velocity potentials
which, in fact, are the links from every particle to every other particle
in the universe it is evident that the true physics of
the universe is largely nonlocal and totally symmetric and perfectly conservative globally but does not have to be conservative with respect to the introduction of new geometry and hence has processes that may appear to be nonconservative at the local level. In other words the universe has a mechanism for furnishing itself with new mass.
It is appropriate to talk of particles
as either composite particles (made of two oppositely
charged particles) which are equivalent in structure to the Archetype
so that they are null charge particles or as half particles
which are elementary charged particles. In a universe of n
composite particles there are n half particles which are
sink type particles and n half particles of source
type particles. Half particles have half integral spin where
composite particles have integral spin. In a universe of only
composite particles, where we can conceive of only null charged
particles like neutrons then each null particle has velocity
relationships to exactly n1 other particles. But the fact that
a null charge particle can be decomposed to two half particles
(ordinary charged particles) which are charge conjugates of each
other argues irrefutably for geometric closure. In other words,
because a neutron decomposes to a proton and an electron then
geometric closure is absolutely implied. This closure implies
that a single composite particle has two dynamic relationships
with other composite particles. Consider the topology of a closed
surface (such as a sphere or a torus) where any particle A
that has relative motion with respect to another particle
B on that surface is both approaching and receding from
particle B. Next, consider that any particle has dynamic
or motion relationships with n1 other particles. This means
that A has n1 source and n1 sink relationships
and, in fact, is composed only of those relationships  and,
of course, we are back to the original hypothesis. One might
argue that this is circularity and, of course, it is exactly
that in the same fashion that Maxwell's equations as traditionally taught in academia are circular.
(A changing electric field produces a magnetic field but the
time rate of change of the magnetic field produces an electric
field which is changing in time so that the original hypothesis
is arrived at once again.) So, we can say that the unit charge
is composed of n1 velocity potentials (of either sink
or source type). The Archetype or composite particle has 2*(n1)
or 2n2 momentum states which sum to a net zero or more correctly
net null state. Of course, considering that the universe
consists of n such composite particles implies that the
net momentum of the universe must be zero or more perfectly,
null. Closure also implies another rather important physical
principle which is that the motion of a charged particle implies
the opposite motion of its charge conjugate which is somewhat
illustrated in the idea of the motion of an electron and the
conjugate or opposite motion of an electron hole. So contrary
to our ordinary conception we find that elementary charged particles
cannot exist in true isolation any more than can the notion of
magnetic monopoles. We recognize the composite nature of magnetic
flux and expect no singly isolated monopole particle but unfortunately
we fail to recognize (in the standard conception of the motion
of a charge) that such motion cannot take place in isolation
(sans its conjugate) in a closed universe. In other words, charges
really only have the appearance of isolation but, in fact, do
not and cannot move or exist in isolation but always have a continuous
relationship in their conjugate (observed or not).
M. Since any particle has n1 momentum
states (and hence energy states) the Archetype provides a structure
through which any state can be accessed.
N. The net momenta of the universe is zero
(or null). Since momentum is the product of mass and velocity
we can assume that the net motion (velocity) of the universe
is also zero or null. Hence, there are no global velocities (in
other words, no absolute motion). Neither is there implied, then,
a spacetime background or continuum (universal field) compared
to which any particle could have an absolute motion.
O. In a universe of n particles every
half particle has exactly n1 momentum states. Since momentum
is a product of a particle's mass and its velocity, momentum
is always a relative quality and it is only relative to the other
particles in the universe with which it could have a 'relative'
velocity. Newton's third law is frame independent (or invariant)
with regard to any given particle pair. Which means that any
particle already has equal and opposite momentum with every other
particle in the universe that has motion with respect to it.
In a universe of n particles its quite simple to see that
there exactly ((n^{2})n) momentum states
but only ((n^{2})n)/2 pairs of momentum
states wherein each pair is composed of a particle's momentum
state and the momentum state of the comparative particle from
which the first particle's state was derived. Choosing
the center of momentum frame always distributes the absolute
velocity between the pair compoents inversely with respect to
their masses and gives them equal and opposite momentum. Again,
this picture implies a net momenta of the universe to be exactly
zero or null. Zero momentum implies either zero mass or zero
velocity so we surmise that the net motion of the universe is
zero. This result does not change if the number of particles
in the universe changes, that is, if n changes. Hence,
the universe never has too few nor too many particles. This line
of thought leads directly to the most important idea in physics
which is the thought of the violation of the conservation of
matter and energy because it is implied that n can change
in the universe without changing the general state or condition
of the universe.
P. The existence and validity of the charged
particle interaction General Case and the development
of an Archetype structure from a constricted beam of charged
particles directly implies the apparent violation of the conservation
of charge (since a finite number of like charged particles can
be formed into a new structure which has a net charge of zero). But we see that this is truly not so from the global viewpoint.
However, since the newly formed structure is seen to be composed of two counter oriented
charge conjugate structures with the evident disappearance
(via merging) of a finite number of like charged particles then
the evidence points to the idea that in a universe of n
particles that the quantity n can change. Since n1
potentials is the definition of the unit charge or since
n1 potentials is the metric for determining the
quantity of potentials which establishes the magnitude of the
unit charge (by counting) then the generation and appearance
of an Archetype structure is sufficient evidence of a
change in the global metric (a global gauge change).
Since the Archetype is a standing wave boson then it is
logical to connect the the generation of bosons with global gauge
changes. In fact, every generation of a boson is the evidence
that global gauge changes are ubiquitous in the universe. This
implies that every emission of EM quanta occurs because
of global gauge changes.
Q. The Archetype (EMT) must oscillate between
two states one of which is the ∇ X E vector field mode where there
is the appearance of a magnetic dipole and the other of which
is the ∇ X H vector field mode where the magnetic dipole mode is
replaced by the electric dipole mode.
