"imagination"

**humanbydefault** · 10-07-2005, 11:00 AM

“JUDGEMENT DAY”

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” [Albert Einstein]
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius –and a lot of courage- to move in the opposite direction.” [Albert Einstein]

Einstein was a visionary man besides being a genius in science. He understood the temporary roll that quantum mechanics [QM] was destined to fulfill among us due mainly by its inability to offer a complete description of reality, but no less important its remarkable success in answering puzzles classic mechanics were unable to answer at the time.
He was seen as a senile introvert and eccentric old genius incapable of accepting the roll of looser conferred to him by the “Copenhagen trio.”
Publicly humiliated by his defeat after the “easy win” scored by his long-time opponent Neils Bohr during the days of the EPR experiment, he decided to disappear from the public arena. It’s no secret that he dedicated the last years of his life looking for a theory honored by this site carrying his dreams:

“The theory of everything”

It takes very little brain to ignore the tragic implications derived from accepting a theory –I’d rather say “using it”- as a shield to impose a dogma that defies logic and common sense for the miserable price of its limited technological benefits. QM is about wave mechanics. It predicts experimental results only because the “damned thing” simply handles “particles” as waves [and just because of that]. They have managed to indoctrinate generations of physicists into Bohr’s complimentary principle making them believe that the universe is so malign that it keeps changing the status of its “particles” into waves just to make us feel stupid. That’s –ladies and gentlemen- the uncertainty we must accept in exchange for the theory’s graceful favors. The so-called “potential” of manifesting itself as a wave or as a particle was reduced to the final act of a human measurement. How arrogant have we become in the last hundred years? I keep asking myself the same question every single day!
The pragmatic way or turning away from philosophical considerations [the so typically experimentalist- type of… Shut up and calculate!] Does not do any better. We are starting to “see” the results of ignoring our stupid mistakes. We can hear the desperate voices of those experimentalists complaining about their impossibility to apply the Pauli exclusion principle in high-temperature insulators [mott] and there is more to come that they won’t understand either.
I’ve been working in a model of reality that without “trashing” what we’ve got, could explain what we can’t understand. I studied the puzzle of the “Two slit experiment” among many other things available to the general public in books about modern physics. I didn’t have the privilege of attending the university for reasons I won’t discuss here since they belong to politics and I hate politics! I did graduate from an academy in the filed of electronics and radio communications. However I always loved the other face of the “coin.” I was always attracted to theory and physical paradoxes. Anyway! I worked out my theory and my arguments in a book format and I decided to self-publish it the best way I could. I did it and I chose to title it “Warning scientific discretion advised.”
Previous to the writing of my book I had read many books and I had the chance of making sense out of multiple contradictions implicit in the obscure subject of matter, time, energy and space.
I thought that Einstein’s equation ought to be right in any version of my theory and I found the alternative I was looking for: I kept [in the quantum of energy] intact the physical proportionality of both (ENERGY AND MASS) but only in regard to their magnitude. I immediately knew that the interchangeability of their nature was misinterpreted by Einstein back then. If mass was infinitely small, so small that we couldn’t even see it with our most sophisticated instruments, I had the “element” [the substance] capable to avoid the perfect vacuum two interfering waves of energy would produce in space. I had already the physical pattern of standing waves from music. I had to assume that the inclusion of mass into the “equation” of a fast spinning pattern of interference had to be almost instantaneous. Then I’ve got familiar back then with the EPR experiment and Bell’s theorem. It didn’t take me long to figure out the answer: “the speed of validation of the law of conservation of energy had to be “faster than light.” I was worried about assuming that such speed could even exist, but I realize that I wasn’t contradicting Einstein’s postulates about light speed being a constant in the universe. Light was a wave of E-M energy and therefore it wasn’t “above the law.” The greatest moment of all was when I came to realize that it had to be a mass relationship between the so-called “quark,” the “proton” and the “electron.” I saw in my mind a group of circles spinning with different energy density at a given distance from the core of the atom. I thought that if the “circle” [elliptical in shape as we know] was closer to the core, it had to be denser in energy containing enough mass to avoid the perfect vacuum. As I analyzed the second “circle” I saw it less dense [less dark] but covering a greater extension of space with a bigger radius. Then I understood that the effective mass had to be the same as the previous circle because what happened was that energy simply spread in a greater radius. Think of this way! If we were able to actually “shrink” the entire harmonic conforming “protons” [for example] we would end up having the same “quark” harmonic spinning one level under! The same way, if we were capable of shrinking the electronic orbit [ground state] we would obtain a harmonic right below it.
I called it: “The lepton factor.” [As you all know by now].
I had design a new atomic model and I was about to explain the difference between “atomic electrons” and “electron outside the atom.” I came to the amazing conclusion that “electrons” -We had taken for components of matter and indivisible particles- were the incredible result of a process of manufacture similar but not identical to photons. It wasn’t too difficult to see that the difference between both E-M quanta had to be located in their structure. If atoms had a center of mass then “electrons” also had to have one. Of course! If they were manufactured inside two entangled atomic couplings [molecular bonds] the time-factor between both harmonics had to be different too. That was all I needed to explain why “conduction electrons” had a tiny center of mass. That’s why we see “electrons” in the “chamber” as true particles! That’s why a temporal instability inside the “electron” [a sort of spinning phenomenon occurring around its center of mass] was capable of producing a rotational magnetic filed as it propagates across the medium. Such magnetic component was also responsible for observed deviations from magnetic fields too.
Photons on the other hand were manufactured in non-entangled harmonics, just as the ones seen in the atom of hydrogen. Since mass was not an integral part of photons, it didn’t have a center of mass and it didn’t have a “temporal recipe” like their cousins the “electrons” they were electrically neutral.
There was much more as you know by now. I finally could explain the puzzle of the “Two slit experiment” since I wasn’t dealing with “true particles” anymore! I came up with the final solution to the spectrum the day I understood the true nature of the vacuum [ether]. While “others” blamed the angle of diffraction of light against the slit during the wave propagation, I knew that it had to be something hidden to us. It was too perfect and too convenient to assume that individually shot photons would diffract from the slit just the way we wanted them to do it. The same nature of the vacuum helped me to explain why magnetic fields in magnets were able to exist outside the metal on thin air.
I had given to you “my arguments” trying to explain why “quarks” “protons” and “a single electron” in the atom of hydrogen CAN’T DECAY. I haven’t heard any theory yet justifying such a disappointing aspect of particle physics. I could give an answer to those remarkable conclusions obtained in the so-called “Shell theory.” Those hints to numerology were understood under the assumption that a complete harmonic – Just like the one found with “neutrons”- were the reason for the abundance of the particular element in nature.
Shell theory dealt with “believed particles” like protons, neutrons and electrons. I took from them their identity as independently existent particles and I turned them into simple quanta with some mass “imposed on them” by the universe at its own convenience. I eliminate the need for messenger particles and the human glue to keep “positive protons” stick together inside the nucleus. I gave a plausible explanation to why atoms were in fact NEUTRAL. I also extended the concept of bonding to the nucleus too, in what I decided to call “nucleonic bonding.” As an example of such bonding I mentioned the famous “neutron.”
The latest particle introduced by Dr. Paul Dirac in the thirties. I said that there was no difference between a neutron and a “moleculon” although such nomenclature was never used to my knowledge.
Whether you like it or not, it’s a new theory! It’s a new way of looking at reality in a way never done before. My book and my articles are a proof of personal dedication and individual achievement. My theory was not the product of a team but of my own imagination. You may either try to understand it or attack it with God knows what hidden agenda. Judgement day is not far away now… Einstein’s dreams will become reality and a new theory will replace the old and obsolete notion of reality… would that be mine? That I don’t know yet!

M. De Zayas [author] ã Copyright 2005

HUMANBYDEFAULT www.humanbydefault.com

**mkirkpatrick** · 10-07-2005, 06:28 PM

I have read your post Judgement day,and found it very interesting,and thought
provoking,you wrote"quote, My theory was not a product of a team,but of my
own imagination,"unquote.It isvery refreshing to see that you think out your
own ideas,and work out a theory,but also give just credit to great minds like
Einstein,there are many among us who talk of humility while practising arrogance.
Once again thanks for your post,look forward to the next one.

kind regards,michael.

**humanbydefault** · 10-08-2005, 12:40 PM

Thanks MKIRKPATRICK! Your comment is very generous and I really appreciate it. I'd like to hear your opinion and the others about what I'm going to write here too, if that's not too much to ask...
IF matter was actually made up by PARTICLES [electrons,protons,neutrons,quarks etc] and those particles were REAL! Which also means that they exist across time and never disappear like rabbits inside a magician's hat then all that B.S. (Bohr school of thought) has to be true... (you know americans... they love abreviations!). Think about it! A PARTICLE IS A PARTICLE BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE ERASED FROM EXISTENCE!
If deep inside your heart you believe that "sub-atomic particles" are what they say they were then you have to accept uncertainty, probabilities, chaos and look no further a way out of the MESS!
Forget about hoping to find an answer to the "Two slit experiment"! Forget about understanding what "tunneling" actually is! Forget about EVER explain yourself why "neutrons" decay in the lapse of time you use the restroom and "protons" behave with such stubborness and refuse to do it!
There is NO WAY OUT of a conflict derived from a wrong REALITY. Do you actually believe that those guys [Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, De Broglie and the rest of the physics community of the thirties] were arguing non-sense? Do you find those deep discussions part of the "charm" of being a theorist? I tell you one thing: Pack your "bags" and choose another discipline cause you're wrong!
In "IMAGINATION" I was prety articulate with respect to a different physical reality. I wasn't proposing a new version of QM. All I was saying is that QM worked because it empirically formulates a different reality than the one "we" proclaim to be real. Can't you get it?
We hear phrases like "complimentarity" "probability" and "duality" and we accept the roll of stupid little beings that have been put in ridicule by the universe. Let me help you see my point here! Think mass to be your shadow. You stand on front of the sunlight and you see it against the wall. If you move away from the wall the shadow gets bigger [energy increases] if you approached the wall the shadow will "shrink" smaller [less energy]. It's just an ANALOGY do not missundestand my words. In a quantum as photons, the greater the energy involved the greater the mass [dust] participating in the propagation across space. The same process will occur with "charged particles." If [as I said before] the process of compensation mass-energy elapses at a speed [velocity] faster than light, we SEE it as something GIVEN.
It makes perfect sense to believe that we exist in a universe made up by particles but we don't! It's just our incapacity to prove otherwise that keep us "stuck" in the mud of empty paradoxes and endless arguing.
Take a moment and think about all this. There is much more at stake here than just a stupid discussion about what's first "the chicken or the egg" type of "thing."

HUMANBYDEFAULT
www.humanbydefault.com

*An aclaratory note. The reason I always include my link is to facilitate access to it from other search engines.

**humanbydefault** · 11-28-2005, 11:41 AM

Thread: "imagination"

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

"imagination"

I agree Einstein was a great Man.

"Guys... Copenhagenists have a point!"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions