Q-space theory. 3rd article has been published.

[Qspacer]

Hallo to all readers,

Q-space theory is a new unification theory that focuses on an intuitive presentation and perception. Old reader may remember me from my first article at November 2007. I have now published my third article. You are invited to check my articles at my web site: www.Q-spacetheory.org.

Feel free to response.

Roi Lotan-Glazer

[dleviwing]

One of the greatest problems with today’s standard models and the mathematics that are used to describe those models are the interpretations of the numbers. Both Relativity and Quantum theories have lead scientist to make absurd assumptions of reality; this is akin to inventing a god to explain what is not known or understood. I find many absurd assumptions in your articles, so you are completely in line with current absurdities.

[Mikal]

Hallo to all readers,

Q-space theory is a new unification theory that focuses on an intuitive presentation and perception. Old reader may remember me from my first article at November 2007. I have now published my third article. You are invited to check my articles at my web site: www.Q-spacetheory.org.

Feel free to response.

Roi Lotan-Glazer

Hi Q-space, welcome back to the TOE. I read all your articles and found them interesting. I cannot comment scientifically as I am not knowledgeable in the field. However, I see validity in your claim that science is having a "physical intuition crisis." I therefore see your attempts as worthy of recognition and would like to wish you all success in your individual endeavour.


Mikal

[Qspacer]

One of the greatest problems with today’s standard models and the mathematics that are used to describe those models are the interpretations of the numbers. Both Relativity and Quantum theories have lead scientist to make absurd assumptions of reality; this is akin to inventing a god to explain what is not known or understood. I find many absurd assumptions in your articles, so you are completely in line with current absurdities.

Hi dleviwing and thanks for responding.

Have you managed to read 150 pages in less than one day? I agree that there is much absurd in conventional physical theories. Some of these absurds generate troubling contra-intuitive descriptions of nature. This is one of the main issues that my theory deals with. Nevertheless, If you have specific comments or examples from my work to such absurdities I am interested to hear about them and discuss them. I am not claiming for a monopoly on truth. My work has been brought in to the public domain in order to be examined and your criticism is welcome.

Roi

[AntonioLao]

The internet access at the public library could not open some of your articles. So allow me to just ask you a quick question. How have you resolved about the origin of mass? The modern elementary particles physics resolution is called the Higgs mechanism. But this is not fully accepted until the experimental discovery of scalar Higgs boson, maybe using the data of LHC at CERN.

[Qspacer]

The internet access at the public library could not open some of your articles. So allow me to just ask you a quick question. How have you resolved about the origin of mass? The modern elementary particles physics resolution is called the Higgs mechanism. But this is not fully accepted until the experimental discovery of scalar Higgs boson, maybe using the data of LHC at CERN.

Hallo AntonioLao,

I have not explicitly discussed the origin of mass yet in my articles. I estimate that it will take 30-40 articles to fully complete the presentation of Q-space theory and so far I have merely published 3. However, in the appendix of my first article I have published some of the highlights of Q-space ahead of time in order to protect my rights on these discoveries. As for the origin of mass I wrote in section 12 (of this appendix):
"Mass is created where energy is transferred from one spatial dimension to the other in a rotation. It will be evident from Q-space geometry why mass bends space-time."
It will take many more articles and years to properly explain the theoretical background to this conclusion.
In Q-space, the existence of a fundamental mass particle is expected since there is a bottom limit to the amount of energy that can rotate in a given space, however it becomes more complicated, since the fundamental amount of energy in rotation also depends on its inertial system. You may discover some fundamental mass for one inertial system and think that you have discovered the fundamental mass, but later on discover an even smaller mass since you have passed to a different inertial system. This is a problem that I have not yet properly solved in my theory. Actually, I have not yet devoted much time to it and when I will I will need professional help in this issue.
As I wrote in chapter 1 of article 1:
"...I have also reviewed general relativity, and quantum physics, but in these domains my mathematical capabilities still need improvement. Hence it may take me several years
to totally formulate them in terms of Q-space, unless help will be offered to me. However, I can say that in the intuitive level Q-space not only explains any physical
result I am aware of, it actually predicts it from a totally different direction than that of modern physics."

So far, I have focused my efforts on solving the geometric problem, which was determined as "the physical missing link" in article 1. The new geometry that I have developed, is intended to supply the infrastructure for the unification of physics. My present knowledge does not cover all the branches of physics and I hope that I will receive help once that the geometry will be revealed. Specifically, my present knowledge of the "Higgs mechanism" is minor. Maybe I can try and help you in the intuitive level by describing the qualities expected from the fundamental particles in Q-space. Feel free to ask more questions.

By the way, did you manage to open my articles from other computers or is there some general problem with my site?

Roi

[AntonioLao]

Still no luck viewing your article1. I use Hadamard matrices to describe the quanta of spacetime as squares of energy. The advanced geometry I use is Moebius-Hopf topology. This is a distinction from non-Euclidean geometry of special and general relativity.

[Qspacer]

Hi AntonioLao,

First of all I have attached my first article to this reply. Only if the computer that you are using does not have an acrobat reader you may still have a problem to open this file (correct me if I am wrong).

In Q-space, I have found the use of matrices of any type unnecessary so far. But on the other hand, the computations that I made are not so complicated. I am not underestimating this powerful and basic mathematical technique. However, I feel that I can maintain a better intuitive understanding if I do it in the old fashion way.
Anyway, Q-spacetime quanta can be transformed into a matrice presentation. Its presentation may indeed involve Hadamard matrices. The question is what are these matrices multiplied by. The fact that you relate to spacetime as quanta of energy (like I do) and the "Moebius-Hopf topology" that you use makes me curious. Is it possible to read more about your ideas? Have you already published your theory? And where can I read about the Moebius-Hopf topology?

Roi

[AntonioLao]

Thanks for the article1. I noted that the equations of 2 of Newton's laws appeared: law of universal gravitation and 2nd law of motion. About 1907, Einstein was able to combine these two laws into a principle of equivalence which later becomes his general theory of relativity (GR). Now, many accepted GR as a very accurate theory since many experiments proved it. On the other hand, quantum mechanics (QM) also have proved its correctness and usefulness in chemistry and electronics. Now, the aim of most physicists today is to combine GR and QM. The outcomes were superstring, quantum field theories, grand unified theories, and quantum loop gravity. Unfortunately, none of these is successful.
About Hadamard matrices, Moebius, and Hopf please see the following links: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HopfLink.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MoebiusStrip.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HadamardMatrix.html

[Qspacer]

Thanks. I'll check your links.