The Fundamentals
Abstract Measurements
Framelets (subspace particles)
Unified Units
Fundamental Particles
Particle Physics
Three Kinds of Movement
Newton's Laws
Einstein's Laws
Simplified Non-Euclidean Math
The General Field Equation
A New Energy Model
Fundamental "Wave" Length
The Soliton ("particle")
The Measurement Problem
A New Electron Field
Hubble's Constant?
Bohr's Spectrum
A Tiny Summary
These points are covered in The Fundamental
Existent in a style available to those who have studied in this field for some
time. For those who prefer a style suitable to the layman may want to begin with Relative Expansion and follow the links at the bottom of the page.
Then return to the Fundamental Existent to see the
"big picture" of unification in physics.
Other Links:
Are there Aether Atoms?
Why An Aether?
Relative Expansion
Just For Fun:
A Texture Generator
gravity pictures plus sound
The Eight Puzzle
A Slide Show
Flash 5 Art, Physics, Music
An Artificial Muscle?
Antica Farmacista
Antica Farmacista Tuberose
Enjoy Antica Farmacista Tuberose! Antica Farmacista Tuberose, Hyacinth & Lily of the Valley Room and Linen Spray is rich with fragrance notes of creamy white tuberose, green sprakling hyacinth and lily of the valley for a luminous soft floral. Spray in a room or on fabrics for that special touch of ambiance.
Antica Farmacista Tuberose
Premium fragrances for the home:
Antica Farmacista
|
Antica Farmacista Magnolia
Antica Farmacista Magnolia Orchid & Mimosa is reminiscent of aromatic blooms on a warm spring night. White magnolia flower, beloved Orchid and shimmery, bright Mimosa blend into an intoxicating, sophisticated, feminine, lush bouquet. A must for any white floral lover! Choose the home fragrance spray, body lotion, shower gel or perfume and from two sizes in the home ambiance diffuser
Premium fragrances for the home:
Antica Farmacista
|
Antica Farmacista Vanilla
Antica Farmacista Vanilla Mandarin & Bourbon blends the richness of sweet vanilla with zesty Italian mandarin and the spicy essence of bourbon for a gorgeous, comforting fragrance. Warm and inviting, playful yet relaxing, it lifts the spirit and creates a delightful, welcoming environment in any room or space. Choose from two sizes in the home ambiance diffuser, home fragrance spray, personal perfume, body lotion or body wash.
Antica Farmacista Vanilla
Premium fragrances for the home:
Antica Farmacista
|
(I've got to support my research
somehow and this ^ is how I do it.)
|
"…there is really only one viable route
from sense to symbols: from the ground up."
Harnad, S. (1990) The Symbol
Grounding Problem. Physica D 42: 335-346.
|
| In the past, relativity, in spite of the
insights it has taught us about length, has treated rulers as objects external to its
model. Quantum mechanics, however, has focused on the role of the measuring process in the
context of its model and as a result, has been highly successful. In both models, though,
it is assumed that measurements are possible without consideration of how this is so. |
| I have developed a theory that builds a
unification of ideas into what I call a "deeply unified field theory", in that
rather than trying to unify the four fundamental forces, it unifies the physical units of
measurement for space, time and mass. Central to this development is how pure geometry may
be used to represent reality. |
| This unity is achieved, in some sense,
through a conservation of the identity of an abstract and real line. That is, the idea of
a line is conserved with respect to real and abstract space. I think of this conservation
as a semantic alignment, or as a bridge, between the real and the abstract. |
| I have made two assumptions. The first is
that "existents are". The second assumption is that each existent may be
represented geometrically as an unbounded, unpreferred and real frame. I call each
existent a "fundamental existent" or "SubSpace particle", since it is
a part of the space we’ve known throughout history (and because I like Star Trek) and
"particle" because of its "discrete" nature. These two assumptions are
the two fundamental halves of this model. That is, what is represented and how it is
represented. The goal I have set for myself is to use these two assumptions to construct
the laws of physics. |
| I use the notion I develop of a line to
define a "relativity axiom". This axiom defines a relative number as a
representation for a measurement of length, from which you can represent the measuring
process as an integral part of the abstractions of a physical model. |
| MeasuredLength = (TARGET)/(RULER) |
This statement expresses the number of
equivalent reference objects "contained" in the target in an abstract and very
profound way. TARGET represents a physical length to be measured, and RULER represents a
reference length (abstract units!). No material properties about either of these
two lengths are assumed! You can use this expression to build other concepts -- static and
dynamic for example. Say that a series of measurements always yielded the same single
value. You can use this pattern to define the prototype of a static pattern with respect
to the RULER. If a series of measurements of one TARGET yielded different values then you
have a dynamic pattern. You can use these two patterns to classify other measurement
patterns into static or dynamic categories. This seems simple enough, but when you
consider the dynamic case, you can ask which element is really changing, the RULER or the
TARGET!? Because of the relative and "unprefered" nature of TARGET to RULER, we
could easily switch the roles of the two. So, with respect to one ruler a measured length
might be increasing, and with respect to another ruler it would be shrinking! (I have
applied this idea to estimate Hubble’s constant and it is surprisingly close!)
(also
see "Is Matter Shrinking?") |
| Kant has taught us that we can’t
really "know" what reality is. The best we can do is represent it. In my model I
present a ruler as a model of a "real" geometric axis of a frame or SubSpace.
From this representation I relate one axis to another through its scale. That is: |
| Scale = (RULER1)/(RULER2) |
| It turns out that this scale behaves almost
exactly like mass. The difference between scale and mass is that the scale of a frame
accounts for the inertia of "massless" photons (How can a massless object posses
inertia?) as well as massive atoms. But, more importantly, the SubSpace model emphsizes
that the scale of a frame or mass can be directly related, in a very general way, to
coordinates, frames, force and the geometric curvature of a frame. |
| The relativity axiom introduces a new way
of constructing a coordinate system that is explicitly related to a measurement. I call
this kind of coordinate system a "reference dependent coordinate system".
Einstein constructed the basis function for his space-time continuum as a differential
function to avoid where in the universe the origin of this continuum might be. As cleaver
as this was, it avoided how a pair of existents defines the end-points of a
"real" line and thus a "real" unit length – the foundation piece
of a "real" coordinate system. That is it lacks a definition of a
measurement and how this definition is related to coordinates. Consequently
general relativity missed a profound relationship found in quantum mechanics – the
uncertainty principle. The SubSpace model derives the fundamental piece of this principle:
(Planck’s constant)(frequency)=(mass)(c^2). (Although Einstein discovered this piece
of the puzzle he did so as an assertion.) It further shows that a SubSpace particle
manifests a solitonic form whose behavior matches that of a photon. One of the most
exciting features of this model is that there may be a loophole in Heisenberg’s
principle! (The Fundamental Existent for details) |
| This SubSpace coordinate system can be
Euclidean with respect to one frame and non-Euclidean with respect to another. The
SubSpace model shows how, with clear and simple math, this non-Euclidean feature gives
rise to a potential difference. But, there is something of a mystery here, in that the
potential difference I have found, from this pure geometric approach, resembles, in
magnitude, the strong force rather than a gravitational force (what I expected). And
this is my next hurdle. It seems that to understand how conventional mass is related to
the gravitational constant, I will have to construct a completely new nuclear and atomic
model :-( . |
