Aetherwizard

They are both angular momentum. hbar is used in probability theories, which I am not presenting. Surely you have seen my posts regarding the prediction of magnetic charge and its tested result in the quantum anomalous Hall effect.

Before I could explain anything, you need to explain how these statements conflict. And yes, I missed this post earlier. I answered the other part of your question in another reply. The prevailing view in physics states that time dilation is real. Within Minkowski coordinates, time dilation is defined as moving among time frames, which quantifies a physical linear timeline. If you are going to say there is no movement among time frames, then there is no physical basis for claiming the existence of time dilation. Either physical matter moves among time frames, or it does not. And don't make the mistake of thinking I disagree with either Special or General Relativity. I fully agree with the equations of both but disagree with the ontologies. If there is no physical evidence for a physical linear timeline, then the time dilation ontologies cannot be accurate. Yet the correct ontology could be that space is quantized and experiences density gradients. Clocks orbiting at higher altitudes move through a denser space than at lower altitudes. Thus, clocks at higher altitudes tick more ticks per orbit due to space density gradients than at lower altitudes. Thus, the clocks will lose synchronization exactly as calculated, but they will remain in the present moment and not disappear into a different time frame. No satellite has ever popped out of the present moment or popped in from a different moment, thus falsifying the concept of time dilation. Chronovibration removes the possibility of time dilation. Physical evidence supports chronovibration, and no physical evidence supports a linear physical timeline.

Listen very carefully. The prevailing view is that a physical linear timeline is real. A physical linear timeline, such that matter could dilate from one time frame to another, requires each time frame to be populated with a complete copy of the physical Universe in each time frame. An object cannot move among time frames unless there is a physical place to arrive at. There is zero physical evidence for physical matter in any other time frame than the present moment. There is much more than can be said about the lack of physical evidence for a physical linear timeline. You are asking me to provide physical evidence demonstrating that chronovibration is real, but you have no evidence for the prevailing belief. Chronovibration is proposed as the oscillation of forward and backward time such that the net result is the present moment. Physical observations are made of subatomic particles with half-spin properties, but the half-spin does not apply spatially to rotation or angular momentum. In chronovibration, the half-spin nature of subatomic particles applies to the particles seeing only the forward time direction. This would cause subatomic particles to age in the forward time direction while physically existing in a present moment, a present moment that makes no progress toward the past or future. This is what we physically observe. No physical matter has ever been observed leaving the present moment or appearing suddenly from a different moment. So, the physical linear timeline concept has zero physical evidence, and the chronovibration concept agrees with the observable physical evidence. As I mentioned before, and this is my answer to observing chronovibration, the photon speed constant and the Compton wavelength constant are empirically determined. Therefore, the time component, whether linear or cyclical, is automatically inferred as a constant. This type of reasoning occurs throughout physics. I do not have access to all the current technology, either physically or in its literature. This leaves the possibility that someone with available resources would be able to devise an experiment that could physically prove or disprove the concept of chronovibration. Please do not impose more upon me than I can handle, especially with my meager finances. I didn't claim that the ratio of magnetic to electric charge is the same in all particles. In fact, I disagree with that statement. I said the "mass to magnetic charge" ratio is the same in all particles in the Universe. However, I appreciate you applying your skills to what I am presenting, even if you didn't initially understand what I had stated. I am hoping to inspire others with greater skills in electrodynamics to apply Standard Model tools to the new unit system I devised. Although the QMU is based on dimensional analysis, the relationships of the units are different from MKS/SI and some mathematical treatments. I suggest that several of the current math operators in electrodynamics should be dimensional units. If the system proves valid, it would greatly simplify physics and open its understanding to more students. Maybe my system will crash and burn, but my success with QAHE and the Gamma Ray single peak should spark interest in physicists looking for better ways to quantify physics. No, let's not. Yes, it is true that both electrostatic fields and magnetic fields possess divergence. Divergence is not due to the charge; it is a property of the field. Getting into fields is a valid line of inquiry, but let's first gain a common understanding of the geometry of the charges to better understand the fields they produce, at least within my physics theory. I already understand the Standard Model narratives about point particles, their vectors, probability functions, etc. If I was here to improve on the Standard Model, I would say so. Instead, I have said that I am proposing a different understanding of fundamental physics. I propose a different paradigm based on the same constants and data but with different ontologies. This results in a modified set of equations with new equations added. I would not mind sharing my explorations into magnetic moment, but not until we have the same understanding of magnetic charge and its importance in physics. Please tell me that you can understand how the experimental evidence for the QAHE strongly supports my claim for the existence of magnetic charge. You don't have to say I'm right; acknowledge that you understand the simple math that supports my claim.

For all those complaining about not knowing enough about my theory, the forum rules prevent me from providing links to relevant texts. If you ask me for equations, I have to reformat them for ASCII characters, which is too time-consuming for my present schedule. If you want to learn it bit by bit, that is fine, but be patient. It is a vast theory with many differences from the Standard Model. And no, it does not answer every question physicists have asked or will ask. Those questions directly related to my theory were answered. Notice that with all the answers I gave, nobody has commented on the theory presented. Does anybody here know anything about the quantum Hall effect? Not a single word. If you want to know a prediction my theory makes that is verified through experiment, then follow me in the discussion about magnetic charge. To progress in my theory, it is essential to see the magnetic charge's validity. If you want to learn my theory, engage me regarding the magnetic charge and the equations I produce using it. The theory goes much deeper than just a line of text.

What questions relative to my theory do you want to see answered?

I only have so much time in my life. Applying my theory to all physics branches and reexamining the basis of all physics is on my to-do list. You have to start somewhere. It would go a lot quicker for me if I didn't meet with so much senseless cynicism and unwillingness to explore simple concepts first. You won't take the time to learn what I am presenting, and instead, your reaction is to deny anything you do not already know. Have you heard the lament about people who are smart but not intelligent? Set aside your to-do list of questions you want to be answered for the moment. Instead, look at my presentation and see if it warrants further development. Perhaps you will discover insights or fix genuine problems in my theory. I have presented several potentially ground-breaking insights in this thread. You have not looked into any of them. Just because I haven't figured out why Holstein cows have black and white spots instead of green and yellow is something we can discuss later. Diversions are irrelevant to the concepts being presented at this moment.

The weak interaction is "unitless," yet you have no problem calling it a "force." I show the weak interaction as the ratio of the electrostatic force to the magnetic force. I show the fine structure as a ratio between solid angle, one-spin electrostatic charge, and steradian angle, half-spin magnetic charge. It is hardly unitless. Yes, it is my contention that the fine structure constant is different for protons and neutrons. And don't tell me that neutrons have no electrostatic charge. A neutron is a magnetically bound electron and proton as evidenced by beta decay. The fact that their electrostatic charges neutralize each other does not mean the electron and proton have given up their electrostatic charges. I hypothesize these electrostatic charges still interact with the electron and proton magnet charges. You are not pointing out errors. You have not even commented on what I have presented. You are cynically denying whatever I write and trying to divert the discussion to your understanding of physics. If I believed everything you believed, I wouldn't have an "alternative" physics theory, would I? Even now, you have ignored the scientific portion of my post to give more cynicism.

Your response sounds like good science to me. Just deny it because you didn't think of it first. The guys asked for an experiment to prove my theory, and I provided one. Your response is to say, "No way." I'm looking for scientists to discuss my theory with, not senseless cynics. I read in Science magazine this morning, hot off the press, that the QAHE has been detected without a magnetic field. At B = 0 T, Rxy is quantized at ± h / 5e2. As I have been saying, magnetic charge is different from electrostatic charge, and here they are quantizing the QAHE in terms of electrostatic charge. When you use the magnetic charge value that I have provided: 5e2 = 0.917 eemax2 What mainstream physicists consider magneto-"resistance" or "Hall resistance" appears in QMU to be magnetic flux (mflx). According to the physicists, the value of h / 5e2 is about 5 kilohm, 5.163 x 103 ohm to work out the math—just a number that seems "anomalous." When you calculate the value of h / eemax2 in QMU, the result is h / eemax2 = mflx. This may not strike you as significant if you have not followed my posts carefully or read my works. However, I hit the QAHE on the head! This just came out this morning in a highly reputable science publication. The mflx unit is a quantum of magnetic flux experienced by a single electron. I'm not saying my work deserves widespread fanfare, but it warrants further scientific investigation. Science is about investigating promising theories, and my theory is very promising.

What is the fine structure of the proton and neutron in the Standard Model? I just gave values for different fine structures for the proton and neutron, which differ from the electron. Precise measurements of the fine structures of the proton and neutron have not been pursued. Please read my words carefully and don't assume things.

In the APM, the electron fine structure constant (α) is given by the ratio of the electrostatic charge squared (e²) to the magnetic charge squared (eemax²), multiplied by a factor of 8π: α = (e²) / 8π * (eemax²) Applying the same principle to protons and neutrons, we can express their fine structure constants as: p = (e²) / 8π * (epmax²) n = (e²) / 8π * (enmax²) where epmax and enmax are the magnetic charges of protons and neutrons, respectively. Using the known values of the electrostatic charge (e) and the proton and neutron magnetic charges derived from the APM, we can calculate the theoretical values of the proton and neutron fine structure constants: p ≈ 3.974 × 10-6 n ≈ 3.969 × 10-6 These values are significantly smaller than the electron fine structure constant (α ≈ 7.297 × 10-3), indicating a weaker coupling between the electrostatic and magnetic forces for protons and neutrons. Experimental Tests: To verify the predicted values of the proton and neutron fine structure constants, I propose the following experimental tests: High-energy proton-proton scattering: By measuring the angular distribution of scattered protons in high-energy collisions and comparing the results with QED predictions using different values of p, we can determine the best-fit value for the proton fine structure constant. Neutron interferometry: Applying carefully controlled electromagnetic fields to a neutron interferometer and measuring the resulting phase shifts can provide a sensitive test of the neutron fine structure constant (n). Spectroscopy of exotic atoms: Measuring the transition frequencies between energy levels in exotic atoms containing heavy baryons can yield information about the fine structure constants of the constituent particles. Precision measurements of nucleon magnetic moments: Comparing high-precision measurements of proton and neutron magnetic moments with APM predictions can indirectly test the validity of the derived fine structure constants. In my work, I also present a slight correction for the NIST neutron magnetic moment based on theoretical analysis by quantum measurement units.

Right, and Planck's constant is the electron's angular momentum. All values in this relationship are constants. The fact that Planck's constant can be used as a quantum measurement unit for the angular momentum of macro atomic and molecular structures does not negate that Planck's constant is still the angular momentum of an electron.

What do you call h?

You said: Can you clarify? The Compton wavelength depends on a particle's mass, angular momentum, and energy. In quantum field theory, the Compton wavelength is the length scale at which relativistic quantum field theory is necessary for an accurate description of a particle. It is the wavelength of a photon with the same energy as a particle's rest energy. These same observations apply to my work, which is also based on field quanta. The distance between the Earth and the Moon is finite. Considering that space is quantized as quantum rotating magnetic fields and that the Compton wavelength represents the linear length of each space quantum between the Earth and the Moon, then a photon moving through space moves one quantum at a time at a specific rate. Since we know the speed of the photon from Earth to the Moon and back is constant, we can determine the rate at which a photon advances through each space quantum. It is unavoidable that if photons travel at a constant speed and move in quantum steps, then the rate of moving from step to step must also be constant.

Maxwell's equations are based on the MKS and SI units. They first began with cgs units, which were inherently distributed charge-based. When MKS units were developed, the charge dimension was added, but it was assumed to be a single dimension. This led to cgs units being altered to include "stat" units. The MKS units of conductance, permeability, permittivity, inductance, and capacitance remained structured as distributed charge units. Still, all other units, such as potential, current, resistance, magnetic flux, etc, were provided only single dimension charge. This causes problems with important equations, such as the impedance equation. The impedance equation is thought to involve the addition of LC resistance to wire resistance. However, the LC "resistance" should be magnetic flux in a correct system of units. Thus, adding magnetic flux to resistance necessitates including the imaginary number to account for the mismatched units. There was a reason why Heaviside reduced Maxwell's twenty equations to four. Maxwell's equations did not always pan out. In my work, curl is a dimensional unit equal in MKS to curl = 6.333 x 104 coul2 / (kg · m), but in Maxwell's work, curl is just a vector differential operator. You can see from this that Maxwell's equations cannot be useful in QMU. However, the QMU curl unit can be applied to General Relativity theory to calculate the straight path trajectory bending angle near massive objects: G (2msun / rsun) = 8.493 x 10-6 (curl / 2) Au Here, Au is the space quantum and the value of curl / 2 is given in radians. And so we see twice the length density of matter causes a deflection angle of half the space curl. The curl unit is reciprocal to the QMU permeability unit, perm, where: perm = 4π μ0 The inductance of a coil in QMU equals: indc = N · L (2 · perm) Where N is the number of turns of (2 · perm) and L is the length of the coil. I physically verified this equation by measuring the inductance of a known coil. This shows that the curl and perm units have physical meaning. It also demonstrates that twice QMU permeability directly measures the turns of an inductor.

Yes, but more than that. A neutron is considered to have a net zero electrostatic charge, hence the name. Yet the neutron beta decay results in a positively charged proton, negatively charged electron, and anti-neutrino. This refers to the electrostatic charge of the particles. I am proposing that, in addition, there is a magnetic charge for each subatomic particle. The magnetic charge is directly proportional to the mass of the particle. Therefore, the mass-to-magnetic charge ratio for the electron, proton, and neutron are the same. Furthermore, space quanta allow for a specific maximum mass (ma) and a specific maximum magnetic charge (ea2). Thus, the space quanta also possesses this mass-to-magnetic charge ratio. These values are explained in the theory if you are interested. It would take a lot of text to show the explanations and quantification, but you can figure most out by following the explanation for the electron. me / eemax2 = mp / epmax2 = mn / enmax2 = ma / ea2 My theory anticipates the magnetic charge predicted by the fractional quantum Hall effect. The magnetic flux quantum of the quantum Hall effect is notated as phi naught: φ0 = 2.068 x 10-15 weber My theory provides a new system of units based on Quantum Measurement Units. The unit of magnetic flux is then equal to: mflx = (me · λC2 · Fq) / eemax2 Converting MKS/SI units to QMU requires a charge conversion factor (ccf): ccf = e / eemax2 Therefore, we show that: φ0 / ccf = mflx / 2 In QMU, the mflx unit applies to the action of the quantum electron, as all of the QMU do. Another example is the gamma ray single escape peak which is equal to the QMU potential unit: potn · ccf = 511 kV The magnetic charge of the electron is also a consequence of the electron's angular momentum (Planck's constant) times the space conductance. Where the space conductance (Cd): kC = c · Cd · (μ0 / ε0) eemax2 = h · Cd As for tolerance, this is the Speculations section of the forum where people should post alternative theories. Yet, one is not allowed to provide a link to a properly referenced paper that has already been written to present a careful understanding of the theory. Let's say that I was correct in testing the waters. No, chronovibration is not the same value as the photon speed. The equation reads that the chronovibration frequency is equal to the photon speed divided by the Compton wavelength (quantum length). The photon speed is a constant in mainstream physics. The Compton wavelength is a constant in mainstream physics. This means the chronovibration rate must also be a constant. If the measurements of the photon speed and Compton wavelength are highly accurate, then it follows that the chronovibration is automatically known to a high degree of accuracy. Of course, no physicist that I am aware of has as yet attempted to directly measure chronovibration, but only because they were not looking for it. Physicists have been assuming that physical temporal reality is a physical, linear timeline, yet there is no physical evidence for physical matter in any other time frame than the present moment. My theory claims the present moment is the result of an oscillation between forward and backward time, which results in a present moment that makes no progress toward the past or future. My theory further proposes that the half-spin nature of subatomic particles causes physical matter to see only the forward time direction within the present moment, which is what we observe. I am a poor theoretician, not an engineer at a major lab. Albert Einstein did not design a nuclear bomb to demonstrate E=mc^2, that job was left to engineers. Similarly, the job for directly detecting chronovibration would be for the experts at NIST. However, if you would like to direct a sizable amount of funding my way, I could research the current technology and put together a plan for directly detecting chronovibration. You and I agree concerning magnetic monopoles. I acknowledge your statement that dipolar subatomic particles possess a dipole moment. However, I want to clarify that my current discussion is focused on magnetic charge and not other characteristics of electrons. Please take a moment to reflect on my point and refrain from diverting the conversation towards an unrelated topic. The reciprocal nature of the charge is easily seen by simple algebra: 1 = e2 / (8πα · eemax2) The electrostatic charge is in the numerator, and the magnetic charge is in the denominator. In the same way, time is reciprocal to frequency. It would be more productive if you took the time to listen to what I was presenting rather than telling me what to say. The e is the elementary charge. The charge is expressed as a single dimension in MKS and SI unit systems. In QMU, all charges are expressed as a distributed dimension. Hence, e becomes e2. The value of e is the same in both systems. You are correct that magnetic and electrostatic charges are not the same units. The physics of electrostatic charge is different from the physics of magnetic charge. The electrostatic charge has a spherical angle (1) and one spin (1). The magnetic charge has a steradian angle (1/4π) and half spin (1/2). The splitting of electrostatic and magnetic charges from the Singularity results in a distortion factor known as the fine structure constant. 1 = 1 · 1 · e2 / (4π · 2 · α · eemax2) The geometries of the two types of charges are very different indeed. To test my hypothesis, one could begin by studying and understanding it thoroughly. After that, it could be applied to known unexplained phenomena, such as the anomalous fractional quantum Hall effect. My theory proposes that magnetic charge is a quantum property of subatomic particles. Based on this magnetic charge, the Quantum Measurement Units of magnetic flux can predict the precise value of the "fractional" quantum Hall effect. Your unwillingness to first study the theory does not give justification for dismissing it.

According to Relativity, the photon speed is the same throughout space whether we are in motion or not. Our perceptions may differ, but you must decide what topic interests you. Are you interested in how the Universe looks to your perception, the perception of the light source, or the space the photons move through? We can precisely calculate what the Universe looks like from our perception instead of another perception because the photon speed is always constant in the space it moves through. Relativity theories have no foundation if the photon speed varies in different localities. By "locality," we are talking about the quantum scale.

I am aware that magnetic monopoles have not been accepted as separated, but they were detected just a couple of months ago. In a new study published in the journal Nature Materials, scientists from the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, and the National University of Singapore captured the first naturally occurring magnetic monopoles emerging from collective electron behavior in flecks of hematite, a type of iron oxide. I am not positing magnetic monopoles. My work posits electrons are bipolar magnets in themselves. The magnetic charge of the electron in my work is reciprocal to the electrostatic charge. The relationship is as follows: e2 = 8πα · eemax2 Here, α is the electron fine structure, e2 is the electrostatic charge, and eemax2 is the electron magnetic charge. The space quantum in which the electron resides has a 16π2 geometry where the electrostatic charge for a space quantum is a dipole electrostatic charge of two spheres (4π)2, and the reciprocal 16π2 geometry for the magnetic charge is four tubular loxodromes 4 x 4π2. Represented geometrically as: The dark blue tubular loxodrome represents the electron geometry in this image. This image is a geometrical model; it is not implied to be the actual image of an electron. Think of it as similar to Feynman's diagrams. It is a visual aid. The electron has the magnetic charge of the dark blue tubular loxodrome and the electrical charge of the blue sphere. This image is mathematically created using MathCAD 11 with available equations. This image is to be seen within the context of chronovibration. Chronovibration would be a temporal oscillation that begins at the Singularity (the point between two adjacent spheres) and traces each sphere in opposite directions in the forward time direction. When the forward time trace reaches the antipodes of both spheres, the time direction traces from both poles, spiraling inward around the axis and back to the Singularity. The rate at which this temporal oscillation occurs is the quantum frequency. I will then make it a point not to post a link to the paper in this discussion forum. However, if there are those who are truly interested in a scientific discussion and would like to read the paper, check my profile. Also, I can PM a link to the papers on ResearchGate at an individual's request. Chronovibration is measured the same way photon speed is measured. A beam of photons is sent across a known distance and back. Since it is hypothesized that each photon quantum distance (Compton wavelength) occurs within one cycle of chronovibration, then the chronovibration rate must be: Fq = c / λC Time dilation theory is based on the assumption of a physical linear timeline. A physical object cannot move from the present moment to a different time frame unless all time frames in the past and future have static physical copies of the Universe. There is no evidence for a physical timeline, yet it is used by physicists. Chronovibration is the alternate explanation for physical, linear time. Chronovibration is a physical frequency of forward and backward time. The net result is that the present moment exists and makes no progress toward the past or future. However, half-spin subatomic particles would see only half the chronovibration cycle and, therefore, see only the forward time direction within the present moment. Thus, we physically perceive physical matter and experience entropy even though our perspective does not experience entropy. No matter where our physical body goes and how it ages, our mind always has the experience of being right now. That is the verification of chronovibration. It matches our physical reality. Chronovibration is quantified as Fq as described above. It comes in precise discrete cycles. Because of the constant frequency of chronovibration, photons travel at a constant speed among space quanta. Chronovibration is a constant. Since it does not change, there is nothing to conserve. In Relativity theories, chronovibration is the physical cause of the constant photon speed in local space. Chronovibration is the reason the Relativity theories work.

That is hardly fair. I have had to read numerous texts and papers to gain my physics knowledge. You don't think you should do the same? Try to explain the physics of the anomalous quantum Hall effect to a newcomer with a simple cut and paste of the "relevant" details. You may have to wait until tomorrow for me to follow up, as I believe I have a limit on how many posts I can make according to the forum rules. I gave a brief description of chronovibration in a previous post.

I know that many people dream things up without math to support them. They come after me, too. The problem with cynics, who hide behind the claims of being skeptics, is that most cynics are unable to separate equations from ontologies. There is an incorrect belief that those who discover equations get to choose the ontology to explain those equations. I fully agree with the equations of both Special and General Relativity; however, by looking at different ontologies to explain those equations, we can extend current physics much further than it currently extends. We can discover additional valuable equations, leading us to a single overall ontology that can explain everything in the Universe. For example, we use the concept of linear time to explain many of our equations. The equations involving linear time are well-tested and yield accurate results. However, there is no physical evidence for physical matter existing simultaneously in all time frames such that a linear timeline could exist. For all the claims of time dilation, no physical object has ever left the present moment or appeared unexpectedly from another moment. There is an alternative explanation that can use the same equations but explain temporal behavior in terms of chronovibration. Temporal reality may be a vibration between forward and backward time. Half-spin subatomic particles may have the "half-spin" property because they see only the forward-time component of space-resonance. This chronovibration frequency would equal the speed of photons divided by the Compton wavelength. In reality, the constant speed of photons in local space could be caused by the chronovibration frequency times the Compton wavelength. This constant vibration is physically observed as zitterbewegung and the inherent space vibration of quantum field theory. But I guess that many people will throw their arms in the air and yell "pseudoscience" because they are perfectly happy with the concept of a physical linear timeline, whether physical evidence exists for it or not. They are happy with discussing mysterious subatomic particle spin that doesn't spin spatially and want to leave it at that. All I'm looking for is a discussion with open-minded physicists who can stay grounded in equations and data and do not hold an irrational attachment to particular ontologies based on nothing but faith and familiarity. Peer review is exactly what I am looking for. What I am not looking for is a group of people who think that once an idea is agreed upon, then it becomes sacred and ineligible for questioning. It is my understanding of science that all scientific ideas are always subject to questioning even if they become popular. That is what is supposed to make science what it is. In fact, a good science teacher will not tell a student what is true or false but will present them with scientific tools and allow them to draw their own conclusion. If the science is truly settled, the student will unerringly arrive at the same conclusions as all other scientists. I found several issues with the present set of ontologies, which have been presented as settled science but which nobody has been allowed to question.

Are papers allowable as starting points for discussion on this forum? I experience tremendous bias in science forums favoring peer-reviewed concepts and a lack of open-mindedness toward fresh ideas. I recently wrote a paper and published it on ResearchGate to explain my mathematically supported physics insights. As part of my research, I even developed a new system of units based on the concept of distributed charge and the concept that there are two quantifiable types of charges: electrostatic and magnetic. Through these enhanced physics tools, I have demonstrated how the Relativity equations are easily expressed as fluid Aether equations. More importantly, my work demonstrates that the so-called "anomalous" quantum Hall effect is better explained in terms of magnetic charge than electrostatic charge, which validates my theory. My theory similarly explains numerous other physics observations better than the Standard Model. The problem I encounter is the instant hostility that arises from such a claim, rather than a measured scientific approach that would begin by reading the paper and checking out the simple equations. Is it safe to post the paper and expect a proper scientific critique rather than an unresearched, knee-jerk reaction?