finiter

Reduced to the minimum, there can be only three senses: related to space, time and matter (matter, of course includes it mass and energy). Depending upon what aspect of matter, space and time we have to sense, we have many sensors. That is, 'Actually we have rather a lot'. Perceiving the thoughts and actions of ourselves and others is rather an interpretation of the brain about what we receive through our deployed sensors, so that we may act accordingly.

Is this your original idea, or is it that you represent a school of thought? I also subscribe to that idea. In my opinion, it is the expansion of the universe (more than anything else) that maintains life. The expansion itself is programmed to end at a finite time and then the universe contracts back to the original state because the universe is built up of particles having energy as quality (it is just my proposal). If it is so, the half way of expansion (say, a period of 100 million years at the midway) will be the time when intelligent beings having consciousness will appear in the universe. From the primitive life to consciousness, the evolution is a programmed one. To be more basic, consciousness is programmed in matter.

Problem is, it is lengthy, covering all basics from fundamental particle to universes. So I submitted parts individually, and there it lost the relevance. The only reply I got was this is not the appropriate journal. So I changed strategy, and compiled it in a book form and published myself quite recently. Now I find there is no reason why it should take off. The only satisfaction is that I have compiled it in the most perfect way that I can, and with an ISBN and being available in Amazon.com, my work stands documented. Your reference to the longest proof was interesting. I visited that site. My theory is based on the conjecture that energy is a quality of matter. Aristotle thought that to keep a body in motion, a force has to act on it always. Newton corrected him and said that once the body is set in motion, it requires no more force to keep it moving. I think the correct position is that a force is never required for a body to move; the body moves on its own. My theoretical work was to examine how a fundamental particle, having mass, volume and energy as qualities, would behave - how such particles interact, how these integrate, what intermediate units are formed from these, what the final form will be , etc. This required a lot of explanations, and hence, the lengthiness. In the shortest form the Finiteness theory can be stated as follows: "The universe is matter in its finite form"

It is proposed that forces are created as a reaction to the energy possessed. Kinetic energy creates gravitational force, potential energy creates electrostatic force, and the motion of particles having potential energy creates magnetic force. These three are the only real forces of nature, ie, the only forces that have fields. The strong nuclear force is the gravitational force at the level of electrons/positrons. The weak nuclear force is a pseudo force – the energy possessed acts against integration of matter, and so is a pseudo force. The motion of the fundamental particle creates an attractive force equivalent to mc2/2. When these particles integrate, this force gets transferred to higher levels. No additional force is created subsequently. In electrons and positrons, half of the natural energy exists as potential energy or charge, and half as kinetic. Therefore, half of the force manifests as gravity and the rest, as electrostatic force. Both are equivalent to mc2/4. Magnetic force is created at the expense of electrostatic force. As all the large-scale structures are formed by the integration of electron-positron pairs, the gravitational and electromagnetic forces ares eparately conserved. As both the forces are equal in the case of electron/positron, we get the relation, Gm2 = Ee2, where G and E are the respective constants, and 'm' the average mass. From this, the G of electron/positron can be calculated. This works out to be 2.7782x1032m3/kgs2. The three basic forces can be calculated using this G (in the case of magneticforce, the constant is G/c2). The G of atoms, the G of masses (of atoms), and the G of the universe can be arrived at from this G. We have to use mass to calculate all the three forces. At present, we are using charge, a relative value for the mass of electron, for calculating electrostatic force, and the difference is adjusted in the constant. However, in the case of protons, using charge for calculating electrostatic force will lead to wrong conclusions. The relatively small size attributed to a proton may be such a wrong conclusion.

I have tried a few times, but in vain. So I got it published in the book form, but it did not take off. Anyway, I will try my best. As one becomes an expert, inertia builds up; it is just like aging. But of course, you can grow old, keep the mind young, and avoid flirting. I will be awaiting for your comments on my post. It is a fact. I appreciate your observation. May be or may not be. However, the theory has to cover every thing at least in a skeleton form. You may please go through my earlier post 'electromagnetic radiations - an alternate model' in this forum. It is rather lengthy, and I think, no body would have read it to the end (a fact you have pointed out), and hence no comments from any body.

That is what is to be done normally. However, I am not associated with any institution, and so I cannot get any institutional help to have my work peer reviewed. Moreover, my findings are just theoretical and contains new concepts like energy is just a quality of matter, force is created as a reaction to the energy, etc.. Based on the present concepts, these will come under speculations. Presenting my views in this Forum and getting the opinion of people like you is the only kind of peer review that I can expect to get at this moment.

I agree that the force that hold the electron-positron pairs is strong and always attractive like the strong nuclear force, and in fact it is a residual force. What I propose is that the strong nuclear force is actually gravity at the the level of electrons and positrons. At the level of the fundamental particle that I have proposed, gravity is still stronger. The weak gravitational force that we observe is the residual force that remains after the formation of atoms and masses of atoms. You are nearly correct. I have compiled the details, nearly 300 pages. But the whole details cannot be included in a single post. I will include the important points in subsequent posts (if the rules of the forum permit). This is an alternate theoretical model, which I think agrees with all basic observations. I want the scientific community to verify whether my claim is correct or not.

In this post, I present 'The Finiteness Theory', a theory of everything formulated by me. Matter has a fundamental particle that has a fixed mass, fixed volume and fixed energy. The energy is in the kinetic form and the particle moves at the speed 'c'. As a reaction to the energy, force is created. Electromagnetic radiations are streams of such particles. The natural energy and the energy equivalent of the force, of any system made up of such particles, are equal to mc2/2. When the particles integrate, energy and force are used up or trapped inside at every stage, and so, the ultimate system formed has no external energy or force. The fundamental particles first integrate into spherical shells and these shells integrate into electron-positron pairs. The positron, which is slightly heavier, has a slight shortage of energy, and the electron has a slight excess energy. This creates potential states in them, and thus charges are created. The energy equivalent of the charge and hence the electrostatic force is mc2/4, where 'm' is their average mass. This is half the natural force; the other half manifests as gravity. The electron and positron are held together by electrostatic force, and the pair has no residual electrostatic force. Electron-positron pairs integrate into neutrons; each neutron contains exactly 919 e-p pairs, and these are held together by gravity. In forming the neutron, the whole force is used up. Hence, neutrons have no fields and so cannot integrate. Neutrons change into atoms of hydrogen. During that process, matter particles are released in the form of radiations, and so the mass of hydrogen is slightly less than that of neutron. In addition, the residual force of one electron-positron pair becomes available to the atoms and so, these integrate further into heavier atoms and molecules. The atoms and molecules together form masses like earth, moon and stars. These masses integrate into very large orbiting systems, the galaxy-clusters. In atoms, masses and orbiting systems, the constituents are not confined as a single particle; in such systems, the energy possessed by individual constituents acts as pseudo repulsive force, and the attractive and repulsive forces (including the pseudo force) remain balanced. The galaxy-clusters together integrate into a pulsating system, which we call the universe. The universe is thus matter in the finite form, or just a grain of matter. As the whole force and energy are used up in forming a universe, the universes thus formed can neither move nor interact. 'The Ensemble' contains billions of such universes, each remaining at its position in the infinite space. The Ensemble is static and everlasting.

I happened to read this post just now. I would agree with you because I have been visualizing such a possibility including the possible structures of proton and neutron. Electron-positron pairs may be the building blocks of all large scale structures in the universe. Positrons can be part of matter. After all, positrons that were created experimentally came from matter and not from antimatter.

Based on the conjecture that matter has a fundamental particle having a fixed mass, fixed radius and a fixed energy, I have arrived at (1) an alternate model for electromagnetic radiations, (2) the internal structures of electron, proton and neutron, (3) a new kinetic theory of matter,and (4) a new model of the universe. I do not know whether this is the apt forum for presenting these. However, in this post, the proposed model for electromagnetic radiations is presented. Electromagnetic radiations - an alternate model The alternate model proposes that electromagnetic radiations are streams of extremely light particles moving at the speed 'c'. The motion ofthe particle is three-dimensional; it spirals around a circular axis and eventually returns to the original place. The spiral is highly elongated that its radius is negligibly small, compared to the radius of the circular axis.The space enclosed by the path of the particle can be visualized as a torus, the particle moving on its surface. The particle thus makes two revolutions simultaneously: it revolves around the circular axis, the primary revolution, and around the centre of the circular axis, the secondary revolution. The distance moved by the particle during one primary revolution can be regarded as its wavelength. As the particle has a fixed kinetic energy, the three-dimensional motion is uniform. We know that for a uniform two-dimensional motion in a plane, the linear speed (the speed measured along the tangent) and the circular speed are equal. Therefore, for a uniform three-dimensional motion in space, the linear speed (the speed measured along the tangent to the helix), the circular speed (the speed measured along the outermost points of the helix) and the helical speed (the speed measured along the helix) should be equal. It canbe seen that the circle touching the outermost points of the helical path is a 'two-dimensional tangent' of the three-dimensional helix, and so the speed measured along this circle can be taken as the circular speed. The linear and helical speeds are always equal; so, the condition for a uniform three-dimensional motion is that the circular and helical speeds should be equal. For this, R should be equal to a2r/2, where R is the radius of thecircular axis, 'r', the radius of the helix, and 'a', the number of primary revolutions during a secondary revolution. Though we have taken the helical motion to be uniform, it is not exactly uniform in very short intervals of time. The axis of the helix being circular, its turns are closer in the inner half. So the particle moves faster when it remains on the outer part of the helix and slower when in the inner part. These changes in the natural speed create a small charge or potential state in the particle. When the speed of the particle is equal to 'c', there is no charge and hence no electrostatic field. When the speed increases from 'c' to c+Dc and decreases back to 'c', there is a negative electrostatic field, and during the period when the speed changes from 'c' to c-Dc and back, there is a positive electrostatic field. Thus during each primary revolution, positive and negative fields are created alternately, and the strengths of the fields change from zero to the maximum and then to zero again.The particle has thus a variable charge, and so, its motion creates a varying magnetic field. Such particles integrate into systems due to attractive interaction similar to strong nuclear force. The primary integration is in the form of pairs in which the two occupy diametrically opposite positions in the helix so that when one has excess energy, the other has shortage of energy, and thus the pair has always the natural energy. The primary revolutions of the two particles can now be viewed as the rotational motion of the pair. The pairs move in streams, the distance between pairs remaining a constant. As each pair would be rotating as it moves, a single stream creates a pair of three-dimensional wavepatterns. A large number of such streams can be accommodated in the space occupied by a single path. As the number of streams increases, the wavelength of the pattern decreases, and the pairs come closer. Because of the interactions, the relative positions of the pairs will not be arbitrary. Hence,the distance between the pairs will be uniform, the wavelength of the pattern will correspond to the number of streams, and the number of particles in a wavelet will be a constant. Such systems of streams constitute radiations, and thus we get radiations of different wavelengths. The system of streams is not continuous, but contains quantized units. A quantum can be visualized as a hollow cylinder having a certain length and containing a certain number of particles, the particles remaining on the surface of the cylinder. The quantum-lengthis the same for all radiations. However, the number of particles in the quantum (and hence the energy of the quantum) depends on the number of streams. Each stream contributes a single pair to each quantum. Therefore, the distance between quanta is equal to the distance between the pairs in a single stream.Considering the symmetry, we can take the quantum-length to be half that distance. Thus, there is gap of one quantum-length between quanta. The quanta are thus well-separated physical units – a single ray is a chain of quanta moving along a circular path. Thus, radiations having different wavelengths, and having energy corresponding to their wavelengths, are formed from the basic particles. Now, we shall see, what happens to the electrical and magnetic fields when the particles form pairs and wave patterns. When a particle has excess energy, its pair will have a shortage of energy; that is, one will have a negative charge and the other a positive charge. The electrical field line of the pair can be taken as a line starting from the one having shortage of energy and ending at the other. The magnetic field line can be taken as a pair of closed loops passing through the axis and each particle at right angles to the electrical field line. The electrical and magnetic fields are perpendicular to each other and the axis of motion is perpendicular to both. As the pair is rotating, the electrical field lines remain in various planes. The field line for the maximum force lies in the plane of the axis; in the plane perpendicular to it, the field is zero. If the field lines of the pairs in a wave pattern pair are resolved into two components, one in the plane of the axis and the other perpendicular to it, the perpendicular components get cancelled – when the field is increasing, theseare in one direction and when the field is decreasing, these are in the opposite direction. Therefore, only the components that remain in the plane of the axis survive. The net result is that there is a varying electric field in the plane of the axis and consequently a varying magnetic field in the vertical plane. A wave pattern pair thus creates an electromagnetic wave-pair, the wavelength of which is the same as that of the pattern. However, as it is a planar wave-pair with the crust of one remaining exactly opposite to the trough of theother, the wavelength will appear to be half. Therefore, we can take that the e-m wavelength of a radiation is equal to half the wavelength of its pattern. The energy of a quantum is due to the kinetic energy of the particles and so it depends on the number of particles and this in turn, on the number of wavelets. A quantum may contain a fraction of a wavelet or a very large number of wavelets. If l is the e-m wavelength of a certain radiation, the wavelength of its wave pattern will be 2l. As the wave patterns occur in pairs, a quantum of that radiation will contain L/l wavelengths, where L is the quantum-length. If the number of particles in a wavelet is 'n', then, the number of particles in the given quantum will be nL/l.Therefore, the kinetic energy of the quantum is nLmc2/2l, that is, nLmcn/2, where 'n' is the frequency. Here, all except 'n' are the same for all radiations. Thus, it can be seen that the energy of a quantum depends entirely on the frequency of the radiation. So the equation for the energy of a quantum can be written as, hn = mc2/2, where 'h' is equal to nLmc/2. Here, 'h' is the Planck's constant – it can be seen that its dimensions agree with the existing ones. Differences from the existingmodel: The picture of the e-m radiation that we get from the alternate model resembles the existing model. However, there are some crucial differences, which are given below. In the proposed model, the fields are created by charged particles, whereas in the existing model, the fields are independent. The proposed model visualizes a circular path – the radiations eventually return to the place of origin. As the radius is very large, the effect of the circular path will be observable only in the case of very distant objects like quasars. In the proposed model, the electromagnetic wave is a wave-pair, and the direction of the field is always the same. The electrical field remains in the plane of the axis and is always directed outwards; changing the plane of the electrical field means changing the path of the ray to another plane. However, this does not create any differences in local observations, as the curvature of the path is extremely small. In the proposed model, the e-m spectrum is finite and non-continuous; it is a line spectrum, the energy difference between two adjacent lines being equal to the energy of a pair. The frequencies of the hitherto observed radiations lie within a certain range, implying that there may be a limit, and the spectrum may be actually finite. In the proposed model the energy possessed is kinetic energy given by the equation, E=mc2/2. In the existing model, energy is given as E=mc2. So the mass of the quantum as per the proposed model will be double that of the present value. However, the actual mass of a quantum is not of much significance in the present set up. The significance of thenew model: If matter has a fundamental particle having energy as quality, then, as we have seen, the existence of electromagnetic radiations can be explained.The fields are associated with that particle and hence, there can be an inherent relation between energy and the basic forces of nature, making the unification of forces a possibility. The formation of electron, proton and neutron can be explained by visualizing suitable internal structures (this will be explained in a separate post in this forum, if allowed). If matter has a fundamental particle, and the integration can be explained logically, it implies that there may be a theory of every thing.

That seems to be the correct answer. Actually, what is an object? A neutron star is an object; Earth is an object. A proton/ neutron is an object on earth. The densest object that can be formed by atoms on earth may depend upon the average density of the earth, and so there may be an upper limit to that. What makes the average density of earth very low, compared to that of a neutron star? Is it just the amount of matter? Do their individual speeds have any effect on their densities?

We can observe only the past, not the future, not even the present. I think that makes time real. Perhaps, we have to go back to the Newtonian concepts of space and time.

The curving could be nearly uniform and the curvature very small that the path may become exactly circular. However, for this the geometry of the universe has to be spherical. To define straight line motion, we require an absolute space! In a spherical universe, however, the centre of the sphere can be regarded as a point of reference. I just pointed out the similarity: the corpuscles of light following a curved path in absolute space and the waves of light following a curved path in a curved space-time. This similarity may be an indication that light actually follows a circular path. I admit that whatever notion I had about straight-linemotion would be valid only in a spherical universe.

Avery interesting point here is that one is exactly half of the other. The difference, I think, would have emanated fromthe equation used for calculating energy – a possibility. Einstein uses E=mc2, whereas Newton uses the equation for kinetic energy, E=mc2/2.

That means the hyperbole eventually gets transformed as acircle. We actually know the relative nature of the straight-line motion on the surface of earth. We follow a curved path. Then why should it be regarded as straight-line motion? Now, setting aside the general theory of relativity and the wave nature of light for a while, and following the classical Newtonian physics, it may be interesting to note, that we can arrive at a similar situation. Like the large scale structures, the corpuscles of light may also follow a curved path.

That is interesting! Planets, stars and galaxies move insuch a way that they eventually return back to the same position with referenceto the point around which they revolve. So we can say that they do not follow straight-line paths. Can we generalize that every thing including light follow curved paths,the curvature being the minimum for light?

In spite of relativity, we can predict things to a very good extent. That means relativity is normally not a problem, and so, as an observer, we can distinguish between a straight-line path and a curved path. The mathematical part is rather clear. But the physical interpretation of motion lacks clarity; there is not even a common accepted view, I think.

Do you mean that a body, left on its own, would move along astraight-line path in this universe, and ‘space without any field’ is not a prerequisitefor that? Isn'tthat just a mathematical statement? Physically, helical motion is three-dimensional,circular motion is two-dimensional and linear motion is one-dimensional.

Is straightline motion possible in a three dimensional space? All large scale structures inthe universe move three dimensionally. So can we say that only three dimensional motion is possible in a three dimensional space?

I am a lay man who strayed into the domain of theoretical physics. I have been wandering there for the past many years that now I think myself to be freelance theoretical physicist! And now, I have joined the elite club, Science Forums. Of course, I will come up with some 'new' theories. Crush them immediately, or else, I will crush some of the 'old' ones.