alexross

Hi, I don't really accept Complex Quantum Mechanics as speculative but to keep everyone happy I will post here. Admittedly the site is taking time to update and it may be some time before I show that the planets follow a sq root of 2 by a sq root of 3 ratio but you can download that info from my yahoo group. There is a FREE forum for you to join as well http://www.complexqm.com

Hi, The answer to why this effect happens is due to new thinking coming from complexquantummechanics. In classical relativity (as Einstein) there is no knowledge. What I have introduced is the concept of the distortion of space as the cuase of relativity. I think you will agree that as we approach the speed of light there will be some distortion of space. Fortunately, this distortion of space is regular and continuous. It is a small step now to suggest that the distortion of space continues at greater than light speed. The force associated with this distortion is called the F wave. Unfortunately, my yahoo group is getting filled up with lots of theory I posted but if you go back and look at the posts you will find all you need to explain this. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/complexquantummechanics I have just posted the message below as a reminder. The forces I introduce in my Unified Theory serve the following purposes (see uploaded files for diagrams): 1> There is a V force/wave describing the photon's energy. 2> There is a W force/wave. I use the W force to describe the positioning of electrons. The W force/wave is composed of multiple V waves 3> The F wave describes the photon's mass and is an inverted V shape. 4> There is a T force/wave. I use the T force to describe the fluctuations in the wave phase of light that undulates. The T force/wave is composed of multiple F waves. 5> The inverted V shape also mimics the S wave. I have not explained the function of the Scarp or S wave and it associated wave the D wave. These waves are responsible for the binding of the atomic nucleus. That is the simple answer to your question but if you want to get into this more deeply there is a more profound explanation too. I hope that helps, Alex

CHOICE OF SIZE FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL PARTICLE Hello, I have found from the book "Black Holes and the Universe" ISBN 0-521-36683-6 by Igor Novikov on page 148, second paragraph that "each photon of the cosmic microwave background has a certain energy, and the mass corresponding to it is 10^-36 grams". I take this as the smallest possible known particle size in undistorted space even though it is a 'corresponding mass' to allow for future experiments to validate it as 'true' mass. Again to ensure a catch all size and without other scientific measurememts I allow 10^-40 grams. I have researched some other facts for you about the differential particle's sizewhich illustrate the difficulty in putting a precise value upon it. I will take the definition of a differential particle's length as that I was taught in Newton's Calculus as being the smallest possible particle but will add the rider "in undistorted real space". I am not too concerned about the physical measurement of the differential particle. Let us say it has a length of 10^-X and X^2 = Y. Then the complex particle has a length of 10^-Y. I have no way or need of practically using this but do not mind someone trying to measure it exactly. I am quite happy to use 10^-30 instead of 10^-40 but believe future experiments would soon push this back towards 10^-40. An alternative is to measure and define it using known particle masses and changing the definition to embrace mass or h and not length. In "the world treasury of Physics, Astronomy, and Mathematics" by Timothy Ferris (Lib Congress # 90-45693 on page 34 line 9) we have: "Max Planck discovered the existence of a constant in nature which relates to the frequency and the energy of photons. We now call it Planck's constant and write it h". In Chambers Encyclopedia page 617 ISBN 0-550-10050-4: "h is equal to 6.6260755 * 10^-34 Js" It does not seem the best measurement as it is based upon a large particle, the photon but at least it is constant. I have no alternative measure of h if we use an electron but it should be smaller. If we continue down to the quark level we would probably go farther than 10^-40 Js but then it may not be as applicable as it is to the photon? If we do not want to choose the measure of h then we can use (still from page 617): electron mass of 9.1093897 * 10^-31 kg and accept an approximation for the value of Y or classic electron radius of 2.81794092 * 10^-13m or atomic mass constant 1.6605402 * 10^-27 kg. Even using the frequency or wavelength of light is questionable. None of these measures really matches Newtons definition so perhaps it still needs to be standardised and quantified. The value of 10^-40 I gave was an approximation as I said at the time. Choosing a value of 9.1093897 * 10^-31 leaves open the possibility of smaller muon type particles continually shifting the standard as they are discovered. In "Black Holes and the Universe" ISBN 0-521-36683-6 by Igor Novikov on page 132 he discusses microwave radiation in the second paragraph: "the energy of cosmic background radiation (is) equal to the product of 10^-15 erg multiplied by 500, that is 5 * 10^-13 erg. According to Einstein's relation, this energy corresponds to a mass of 5 * 10^-34 gram." Note this relies upon Einstein's relation being correct. For the QM theorist perhaps Plancks constant h is the favourite. Planck based his measurement of the wavelength of a quanta upon the value h. So that the energy in a single particle (photon/quanta) E = h * v where v is the frequency of the wave. It is likely that a differential particle has a value close to Plancks constant h. The whole question of wether an exotic particle can fit into this picture is a research topic I investigate. My approach has be born of a mathematical exploration. The work I have done on calculus and complex mathematics have been applied to QM. This helps to cross check my own work in a practical environment and reduce an element of abstraction. CQM uses and develops not only mathematical logic and abstract mathematical concepts but scientific results and concepts. Mathematics has always been used to test and determine the accuracy of scientific results, beliefs, and laws. You can use complex mathematics to do the same thing. It takes science out of the academic and into the practical world. This is why complex mathematics works contrary to our natural senses with electronics. Thus I have chosen a value I believe future experimentation will not correct. I am quite prepared to allow this value for the differential particle to be set by such endeavours, though. Regards, Alex

Hi, A search at Yahoo for 'complex quantum mechanics' will help you get another perspective should you chosse it. I am reading a paper by Carl M. Bender (Department of Physics, Washington University, St. Loius, MO 63130, USA Email: cmb@wustl.edu) at: http://www.imath.kiev.ua/~snmp2003/Proceedings/bender.pdf#search='complex%20quantum%20mechanics' I would reserve comment yet as I am self taught with regard to Hamiltonian Matrices and field theory. Hermitian conditions stretches my knowledge too far but I think I can gather the main drift. In fact reading into his paper Hermitian conditions rely on different eigenvalues. That was not too bad. I do like his style. Also an explanation for PT symmetry, seems good is the paper: PT symmetry beyond the shape-invariant by G Levai (one copy at Hungarian Atomic http://www.atomki.hu/ar2003/nyomda/101.pdf I do not think I would agree that the break down of real energy eigenvalues to complex energy eigenvalues represents a breakdown in PT symmetry. However I should not really comment before I read it thoroughly. Also an explanation for Hermitian Operators can be found at: http://optics.nuigalway.ie/people/barrett/lecture_3_figs.pdf#search='Hermitian'. This paper jumps in a little too fast but is simpler to read. I find it intriguing that are based upon vectors in this paper. Not a 'self contained' paper, intended as study notes for QM students. Regards, Alex

Hi, A search at Yahoo for 'complex quantum mechanics' will help you get another perspective should you chosse it. I am reading a paper by Carl M. Bender (Department of Physics, Washington University, St. Loius, MO 63130, USA Email: cmb@wustl.edu) at: http://www.imath.kiev.ua/~snmp2003/Proceedings/bender.pdf#search='complex%20quantum%20mechanics' I would reserve comment yet as I am self taught with regard to Hamiltonian Matrices and field theory. Hermitian conditions stretches my knowledge too far but I think I can gather the main drift. In fact reading into his paper Hermitian conditions rely on different eigenvalues. That was not too bad. I do like his style. Also an explanation for PT symmetry, seems good is the paper: PT symmetry beyond the shape-invariant by G Levai (one copy at Hungarian Atomic http://www.atomki.hu/ar2003/nyomda/101.pdf I do not think I would agree that the break down of real energy eigenvalues to complex energy eigenvalues represents a breakdown in PT symmetry. However I should not really comment before I read it thoroughly. Also an explanation for Hermitian Operators can be found at: http://optics.nuigalway.ie/people/barrett/lecture_3_figs.pdf#search='Hermitian'. This paper jumps in a little too fast but is simpler to read. I find it intriguing that are based upon vectors in this paper. Not a 'self contained' paper, intended as study notes for QM students. Regards, Alex

As a general background: "Quest for the theory of everything" by Stephen Hawking ISBN 0-553-40507-1 PAGE 112: "Imaginary time allows physicists to study gravity on the quantum level IN A BETTER WAY, and it gives them a NEW WAY OF LOOKING at the early universe". This is not meant as an infringement of copyright but I did not want to misquote him. I have not researched other books or texts saying the same thing. I see no need and this is perfectly clear. Also the text makes it clear you cannot study imaginary time without using complex mathematics. To avoid misdirected questioning I may repost this at intervals. I can only go as fast as people are prepared to accept new ideas. I am aware that I have come to fully accept that with which you experience as I did when I first uncovered CQM. I can therefore forget the element of surprise and I must not rush people. The practice of scientific reasoning (rather than debate which can but should not be one sided) has evolved over the centuries to acknowledge that mathematics, experimentation, and observation are better arbitors than dogmatism. My approach has be born of a mathematical exploration. The work I have done on calculus and complex mathematics have been applied to QM. This helps to cross check my own work in a practical environment and reduce an element of abstraction. CQM uses and develops not only mathematical logic and abstract mathematical concepts but scientific results and concepts. Mathematics has always been used to test and determine the accuracy of scientific results, beliefs, and laws. You can use complex mathematics to do the same thing. It takes science out of the academic and into the practical world. This is why complex mathematics works contrary to our natural senses with electronics. There is also a good precedence with electronics. Now to give you a more specific instance: Leading on from QM's use of complex mathematics with gravity, CQM describes gravity and magnetism with ADDITIONAL (not exclusive) clarity. I did not claim it replaces the work on gravity already achieved but enhances it and offers a new opening for development. This is a good example of CQM in practice. I accept that additional work needs to be done to reconcile some of the explanations of QM with CQM. It would be better to think of CQM as the other side of the coin to QM rather than combative and seeking exclusion for QM. That would be counter-productive in a search for a UFT. I seek the truth not to prove QM wrong as my main motive. As I said before it is a layer thing. Being on the other side of the coin does not mean at opposite poles. CQM gives a picture of unification. Now with any such unification the marriage of all the present theories is not going to be achieved without questioning or disputing some existing claims. If that were true the unification and UFT would exist already. Again I would point you to the list of desired characteristics for a UFT by Stephen Hawking and compare it to CQM. This again is climbing on his shoulders but I give credit where credit is due he has mapped the way there. The question of discrepancy HAS to arise at some point with ANY two theories. It does not actually arise with gravity although you may instinctively have assumed otherwise. It arises when I push CQM to its logical limitations. CQM has a radical new view of gravity (which instinctly you may sense) but that is not to say it cannot lie side by side with QM in this area. Think of this mathematically: the real is just an expression of the complex and vice versa. They are joined together in complex mathematics and NOT separated. The main body of CQM marries very well with QM albeit not being a marriage of equals but of similars. It is definitely not a marriage of opposites though. This progression can pose new questions and a reinvestigation into previously unquestioned views.

Hi Tom, Yes, thank you. You are the first person to note that Stephen Hawkings has repeatedly mentioned this in his books. I cannot be said to be outside mainstream QM. I do push things further than what is currently contained in QM. I would like to see how far I or others can actually apply my ideas to in QM. I am a better supporter and the best representative there is for QM as I stand for progress (at least for the moment). I am not attacking QM but I have supported it by putting forward a better scenario (as you so rightly point out there is nothing actually new in this approach). I am greatly misunderstood and you only have to read my comments (thank God you did). My understanding and talk of QM has wider appeal because I do not treat opponents as if they deserve an Inquisition similar to that (perceived by classical theorists) of Einstein at Copenhagen. If you sit most prominent QM theorists down they will admit the Presence of complex mathematics in QM. Why should I not conceptualise this further? I am just standing on the shoulders of giants. Regards, Alex

Hi Lucaspa, I guess I should be grateful you do not think me pompous. Its a small comfort. I will read your reply fully but just add a quick reply I believe will help. I did not say QM was wrong we are losing track of the original comments. I said parts of it are wrong. In fact I admitted to picking and choosing but this honesty seems to have been mistaken. I do not pick arbitrarily as you will know by now. To complicate things I am quite prepared to strip existing papers of their non-classical content and absorb the rest into CQM. If I take work from another I give credit even though I have not used it but just digested it. If you want to know where QM has problems then from the top of my head: It does not cope with matter/energy/matter transactions. It fails to define the missing sub-atomic forces. It does not extend to a Unified Field Theory. It has made no appreciable recent advance, and in particular better describing a quanta of light. I could cheat by researching and adding the critisms from string theory (which I suppose are covered by the second point) but want to be fair. If QM were perfect though you would not have string or M theorists. Now to balance that: QM succeeds in: 1> modelling sub-atomic interactions to a high degree of experimental accuracy. 2> explaining some of the behaviour of light. 3> fixing shell positions, ecetera. Now if you know my approach perhaps it will help. I know stephen Hawking is too smart for me to beat head head on. But the tortoise can beat the hare,,,,,,,,,, I follow his work but particularly like to here roger Penrose comment. I have never been able to fault anything he says. So I select my favourite critics even if they do not see themselves in that light. Admittedly I started from a completely different approach in mathematics and complex mathematics in particular. What I am saying is that just as electronics is based upon the foolhardy notion of complex mathematics so there is an underlying and hidden layer to QM but you must use complex mathematics to see it. Now I need a drink. Cheers, Alex

Hi Severian, Thank you for posting your equations I will take a closer look. In the meantime please note you do not use quantum entanglement or such non-classical explanations here. As far as I am concerned that is CQM now and no longer QM. Perhaps I should listen to criticism myself and start a new thread. I will chew that over. regards, Alex

Hi lucaspa, Seems I upset you. Sorry about that. Try and calm down. By now you will have read a reply giving you some indication of my underlying principles. I will attempt to answer your points (although they are many) one by one. Lets clear the deck first though. I do not mind if you are an ardent QM. You can go on forever if you so wish. I just hope to stop you wasting your effort. So firstly: 1> I have tested my ideas and they stand up. Please accept that I have to right to tell anyone I choose and not to tell them too! 2> You should even test your speculative ideas against available data to see if the idea contradicts such data. Well I have suggested certain tests which need to be performed but I do not have limitless resources myself. 3> CQM is a term I invented and I claim authorship to the theory - correct. If I had called it some other term would it please you more? 4> I am not in the business of bringing you down or showing you up. If you reread my comments I hope you will find no trace of this. I criticise QM theory not the QM theorists. Please would you return the compliment (there is no suggestion that you have not by the way). 5> I label my ideas as "speculation" to pacify QM supporters like you. I also do not want to embaress people I have woken to in confidence. I will not betray their confidence and their examination of my work by naming and shaming. As I say I forget who I speak to. What was your name? Suppose you were in their shoes how would you feel if I did what you suggest? I may disagree with Roger Penrose (for example only) but I do not send him poison pen letters or abuse him. I respect him to much for that. In fact Roger is quite undervalued. 6> I will sound pompous to you. It comes from having the benefit of hindsight and so sounding 'elevated'. I try to avoid this as best I can. I can forgive your outburst because it is just that. A release of intellectual energy so long tied up that this emotional trigger of CQM sets up an explosion. I have done the same myself to a lesser or greater degree or both at some time or other. 7> I really do think a written letter would have been better. 8> Form the textbooks I have read the differential particle is of the order 10^-37 or 10^-38. There is not an exact measurement which is another small piece of evidence in support of my statement that we can alter its measurement. I noted that in the texts I have read there are no units though I presume we are talking about metres. This surely is not going to be a major problem for you. 9> Now your comment on "Have you written a paper and submitted it to a peer-reviewed physics journal? Do that and I guarantee that you will get a reply in the form of the reviewers' comments". I am afraid I do not share your optimism. I will take months composing it and formatting it to their satisfaction and then they will tell me I have to do this or that before I get a fair deal. Been there done that. You also ignore government intervention. 10> It is a hasty word to say that "talking about it to non-physicists on boards, especially in the cryptic and self-indulgent language you use, is pretty futile and silly". I am not looking done on people using this service. I do not believe it (or they by inference) are futile and silly. I will take this back for you I believe that you are a good person. 11> Again with my statement about field theory and its 'assumption' I try to avoid argument over trivial points. It is enough to defend my own theories. Yes it is theoretical. 12> I believe I did mention that a 100% provable theory was not always possibel and if it was likely to be revised in the future. This should alert you to the fact that QM will be revised at same time in the future. You are asking for whom does the bell toll? The bell tolls for QM. 13> Now at the end of your message you defend QM. I will admit one thing. YOu are the first QM theorist to stand up to me. So let me be gentle with you. 14> "Supported" means that you have data to support the theory, data obtained in efforts to show the theory to be wrong, often data that is explained only by that theory". I believe I said that. 15> Now I only compose such a wordy response to answer your questions. You like me are emotionally attached to your work. The value of peer inspection and pressure helps to remove this. Why not complain to your colleagues before you reply? Respectfully yours, Alex

Hi lucaspa, Seems I upset you. Sorry about that. Try and calm down. By now you will have read a reply giving you some indication of my underlying principles. I will attempt to answer your points (although they are many) one by one. Lets clear the deck first though. I do not mind if you are an ardent QM. You can go on forever if you so wish. I just hope to stop you wasting your effort. So firstly: 1> I have tested my ideas and they stand up. Please accept that I have to right to tell anyone I choose and not to tell them too! 2> You should even test your speculative ideas against available data to see if the idea contradicts such data. Well I have suggested certain tests which need to be performed but I do not have limitless resources myself. 3> CQM is a term I invented and I claim authorship to the theory - correct. If I had called it some other term would it please you more? 4> I am not in the business of bringing you down or showing you up. If you reread my comments I hope you will find no trace of this. I criticise QM theory not the QM theorists. Please would you return the compliment (there is no suggestion that you have not by the way). 5> I label my ideas as "speculation" to pacify QM supporters like you. I also do not want to embaress people I have woken to in confidence. I will not betray their confidence and their examination of my work by naming and shaming. As I say I forget who I speak to. What was your name? Suppose you were in their shoes how would you feel if I did what you suggest? I may disagree with Roger Penrose (for example only) but I do not send him poison pen letters or abuse him. I respect him to much for that. In fact Roger is quite undervalued. 6> I will sound pompous to you. It comes from having the benefit of hindsight and so sounding 'elevated'. I try to avoid this as best I can. I can forgive your outburst because it is just that. A release of intellectual energy so long tied up that this emotional trigger of CQM sets up an explosion. I have done the same myself to a lesser or greater degree or both at some time or other. 7> I really do think a written letter would have been better. 8> Form the textbooks I have read the differential particle is of the order 10^-37 or 10^-38. There is not an exact measurement which is another small piece of evidence in support of my statement that we can alter its measurement. I noted that in the texts I have read there are no units though I presume we are talking about metres. This surely is not going to be a major problem for you. 9> Now your comment on "Have you written a paper and submitted it to a peer-reviewed physics journal? Do that and I guarantee that you will get a reply in the form of the reviewers' comments". I am afraid I do not share your optimism. I will take months composing it and formatting it to their satisfaction and then they will tell me I have to do this or that before I get a fair deal. Been there done that. You also ignore government intervention. 10> It is a hasty word to say that "talking about it to non-physicists on boards, especially in the cryptic and self-indulgent language you use, is pretty futile and silly". I am not looking done on people using this service. I do not believe it (or they by inference) are futile and silly. I will take this back for you I believe that you are a good person. 11> Again with my statement about field theory and its 'assumption' I try to avoid argument over trivial points. It is enough to defend my own theories. Yes it is theoretical. 12> I believe I did mention that a 100% provable theory was not always possibel and if it was likely to be revised in the future. This should alert you to the fact that QM will be revised at same time in the future. You are asking for whom does the bell toll? The bell tolls for QM. 13> Now at the end of your message you defend QM. I will admit one thing. YOu are the first QM theorist to stand up to me. So let me be gentle with you. 14> "Supported" means that you have data to support the theory, data obtained in efforts to show the theory to be wrong, often data that is explained only by that theory". I believe I said that. 15> Now I only compose such a wordy response to answer your questions. You like me are emotionally attached to your work. The value of peer inspection and pressure helps to remove this. Why not complain to your colleagues before you reply? Respectfully yours, Alex

Hi lucaspa, Sorry I did not see this comment from you too. It is Forgive the pun complicated to explain the full extent of my work on "Complex Quantum Mechanics". You will find some other replies on this forum to explain some basic principles. Perhaps I should restate that a differential particle is of size approximating to 10^40 while I work another level down at 10^-1600. At this level you would reach quantum foam under my peers theories. Actually I have suggested to quantum mechanists (at Manchester University, I believe) that the resulting measuements they have and call quantum foam are only experimental or mathematical tolerance errors. I never got a reply. Surprising really when you only have to produce your calculations. Anyway back to the future. I do not have to introduce the idea that the particle is complex but only smaller than the differential particle. Right? Yes but it so much more revealing. I should not tell you more but as you seem to be burning with curiousity... Take any field theorists work. One of the basic assumptions is that the real number system mimics the design of space's fabric. I would refer to this has God's creation but I respect other viewpoints. I have a box of matches but do not feel inclined to burn anyone at the stake. So back to the maths. Take the converse of this. We have deformed space/time as revealed by Einstein. His mistake was not in defining that distortion. If he had of doen so he would have been able to continue his work and find a solution using classical physics and new classical physics. So we need a number system to define the distortion of relativistic space. Now that you will sit down and ponder this with our online colleagues you will see that there are few options. The possibility of using complex mathematics seems brighter doesnt it? Now about your statement on theories and hypothesis. I would aim for the ideal here and say a theory is 100% provable. Like Pythagoras Theorem. As you philosophically note it isnt always like that. True you have a theory like Newton's Gravity and it seems inviable, then a few centuries later some upstart called Einstein comes along. If only they would learn to leave things be! "As I studied QM as part of Physical Chemistry, it was a VERY strongly supported theory. Why don't you think it is supported? " I will have to define what you mean by supported. QM is good (Do not tell anyone I told you so but I have to ruffle some feathers from time to time). However you are now only judging it by its competitors. There is room for improvement. Like Einstein I do not accept it's non-classical elements and I believe that is my priviledge. Complex QM is crafty. It strips QM bare and takes the provable and classical elements. I do not try bettering the work of Stephen Hawking. I simply look at his results and see if I have got a better interpetation (please dont tell him he partly wrote CQM or we will never hear the last of it). Thats the value of taking positive critiscm and what people like me can do with it if you want to ignore critiscm. Regards, Alex

Hi all, Its interesting to see what is mainly a grown up debate on wether Complex Quantum Mechanics or other such theories should be treated with respect. I can add my two penny worth? Thanks....... First I am blushing that you accept that we are talking about thepry rather than hypotheses. You are right it is a theory but I never claimed it. Someone is more informed than they are letting on. Next.. The comment on ones brains falling out is mind expanding if you will forgive the pun. However would not this be a good definition of what a genius is? A genius surely has a brain too big for his head? Before I pop my head back down below the trench.......... Everything you put up (a nice list of 12 points too) has NEVER been seriously applied to Conventional Quantum Mechanics so why the sudden need for them? I hope this stays within your guidelines. With all respect, Alex

Hello Nameta9, I am pleased to see my theories and fundamental concepts are gathering pace in their support. You do well to say that: "Of course this may not be the case and virtual particles could be made up of something else at the distance of 10^-100 or 10^-1000 . Actually the limits of the observable universe is not how large it can be but how small. What is there at the distance of 10^-100000 ? Alot of room to speculate. " The scientific difficulties experienced in 1998 stemmed from using a form of mathematics which was deficient. A bad workman may blame his tools but it is also necessary to get the right tools to do a job. You cannot perform surgery with a spanner alone. Try and imagine you have a God given priviledge to peer into a mathematics lecture room in the fourth millenium. By then we will have risen from the mathematical mud in which we are stuck today. I am reluctant to allow autocratic governments to have access to my works but I am thankful for the publicity that people such as yourself provide me with and it helps to stem the poor treatment dissenters receive. This leaves challengers of present hypotheses such as Convential Quantum Mechanics in something of a catch 22 situation that can be exploited against them even against the welfare of the citizenry. Please do not underestimate your contribution by willing to listen and press for fair treatment. Now please let me give you some basic idea of what is wrong with the mathematics being used today. Back in history Newton developed Calculus about the same time as complex mathematics. As far as I can tell he did not have access to the theories such as De Moivres that we know. The same was true for De Moivres with Calculus. I mention this to point out there is a 'potential' and indeed true area where our mathematics could be seriously flawed. We trust so much in Newton's mathematics and they have proved so good that it is easy to believe that they cannot be improved. I will pass aside the fact that I have combined these two areas of mathematical philosophy for now, if I may. Let us just see that Newton's Calculus is being discussed in our 'lecture'. The limitation of Newton's Calculus is that it derives from the basic concept of the differential particle. I press home this fact but at the risk of assuming personal pride to call my new interpretation Ross' Calculus. Newton said that "the smallest possible particle is the differential particle". Now this is very relevant to Particle Physics. I say that "the smallest possible particle, IN REAL SPACE, is the differential particle" and thus correct him. You can imagine that real space is also undistorted real space but I want to avoid the nature and definition of these distortions for now. This opens a 'Pandora's box' except that it is not an evil box. Now every time I extend peoples knowledge they will ask another question. So you will have to acknowledge my human limitations. However just to continue for now you may ask if I can really suggest that there is a "particle which is smaller than the differential particle" or that "the particle which is smaller than the differential particle is called the complex particle". The answer is yes to both. If you want to envisage a complex particle you need to clear your head of for a moment. Now consider a differential particle whizzing around in a cyclotron at the speed of light. Good...... Now imagine the space/time around that particle beginning to deform as we exceed light speed. Since the differential particle is only detectable to us in real space we start to lose part of it gradually has we let the speed increase. So if the particle becomes smaller than the differential particle what is it? I would say that you have called it a string or quark like particle. This avoids for the present the need to consider complex mathematics and we can just deal with relativistic distortions. In fact space does not really have to be twisted. You could get a similar effect of a train going down a tunnel if we just have a hole in the fabric of space. However it is still desirable to map out the geometry of those distortions! You will notice that I do not need to prove the existence of a physical particle which is smaller. I can simply translate that particle. Please be sure to see the difference without eliminating any possibilities. If you think this unlikely let me remind you of the limitations of string theory and how string theorists cannot clearly measure their particles! This as I have explained before it is like trying to look at a 3 dimensional object through a 2 dimensional slit and measuring it. With a string or complex particle you also have the added problem of the object being rotated and spun. I leave aside the distortion of space which seems to have passed string theorists by. This in hindsight shows that by avoiding 'complications' theorists have surrendered vital evidence. So now you have it: a reason for our scientific impasse, a reinterpretation of old values, and a way forward which (because it is successful) blazes a trail way ahead of 1998. Now I referred to a level playing field. If current theories do not give as clear a picture and no more (and I would say less) 'practical' evidence than mine why are they not accepted at least as being as good as those presently advanced? I think it is more mature for me to let others answer this last question. Finally in response to your quote the differential particle is approximately of the order 10^-40 and the complex particle is approximately of the order 10^-1600. WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF COMPLEX QUANTUM MECHANICS! Letters rather than emails hugely appreciated. Mr Alexander Ross BSc(Hons) AMIMA Dip. Int. Trd. 7, Midland Street Accrington Lancashire United Kingdom BB5 2AX Email: alexross53@hotmail.com

Hello Selena, I have copyright over my theories on Complex Quantum Mechanics. I would consider letting you use the basis of my theoretical work for your book but I would like a % of your profits. Quantum messaging does not work but if you want to use it as a fanciful excuse it will probably do. For hard sci fi it is rubbish. This is an open offer to any other sci fi author who should write to me as below: Yours sincerely, Mr Alexander Ross BSc(Hons) AMIMA Dip. Int. Trd. 7, Midland Street Accrington Lancashire United Kingdom BB5 2AX

Hi Elas, I understand your position. There is a fear that nameta9 broaches upon in that because the current 'theories' = hypotheses are so complicated no-one can question them and if you do you are on your own! Rather than rabbit on about my own theories I will address your points. Please let me rebuke you a little. People are entitled to question you and me for that matter. We all enjoy the intellectual masochistic sparring don't we? Now Complex Quantum Mechanics which I sent away in 1999 does meet all your criteria and more. It resolves the problems of Conventional Quantum Mechanics but unfortunately for me there is not a level playing field. The current theories are NOT good in their predictions. Try and tell me the position of any electron at this moment! Sorry, I sound a little too scolding! Lets return to a placid state. Now how about your comment that: "If we look at the energy (Hamiltonian) of an electron in an electromagnetic field, we find that there is a contribution from the interaction of the electron's angular momentum and the magnetic field. For an orbital angular momentum" Now to be fair I admit I do not know everything not certainly not the specifics you refer to but I can make a comment. Is it proven that these contributions come from the momentum and the field? It is worth bearing in mind that you can interpret mathematics in more ways than one. In 2000 I challenged anyone to prove my theories wrong. In 6 years I have had only 1 criticism and that is that I am being 'too complicated'. Anyone else want to take up the gauntlet? Now I hope you will take this in good spirit perhaps if your question had been worded a bit less like a defence of Conventional Quantum Mechanics I would not sound so disapproving. In fact I have very little to disapprove of and I am just setting out where I stand. Anyone who wants to carry on the discussion. Please write rather than email me or post a thread. Best wishes, Mr Alexander Ross BSc(Hons) AMIMA Dip. Int. Trd.