Alternative Models of Reality

Steven Andresen

James

Have a look over these two diagrams. I drew these up quite a while ago. I think I could improve on there presentation a little, but they still capture the dynamics you and I are talking about.

Note how this first drawing demonstrates a correlation between an energy value of space conforming to gravitational potential, and energy value of mass. You dont ascribe to an energy value of space, but your photon inverse mass does conform to the light-field (grav potential). So it amounts to the same thing. So the deeper the gravitational potential, the lower the value for mass is at its floor.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6d40e8zieyeaxio/IMAG2658.jpg?dl=0

Note mass is represented by (A) and weight is (B). Weight and mass are infact the same thing, and weight is simple a distortion in the structure of mass, that expresses a proportion of mass photon acceleration in a direction through space. But in expressing some of masses acceleration potential in a direction through space (B), you have to deduct that same energy value from mass (A). The total mass value that must be given, is A B = C. Hard to explain but easy to draw.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xbrnnhh6aigqrts/IMAG2655.jpg?dl=0

Please let me know if you have any questions? But the task that you and I are working towards doesn't need to distinguish these complications of (B) weight. We only need mass (A).

I dont think we need to perfectly understand each other to perform the calculations that are needed. If we get an interesting result, then I suspect we will be motivated to speak at length about what it all means, and what our ideas were, and what they are in light of the new evidence. You and I have our works published and time-stamped. So I suggest we might rely partly on this to justify credits etc, but we might generally agree that we share in any success of this particular project, and the specific results that come from it, the advances made from current efforts. But there are aspects of your work that obviously stand apart from me, like your prior formulated units. You are definitely the unified units man, no question about it. If there are other aspects of your work you would like to distinguished as solely your own, then perhaps mention them for the record? But I'm pretty happy to allow this published account of our collaborations to stand testament of whether I have contributed something to this endevour. But if you have any further considerations or suggestions, I will be pleased to hear them?

Steven Andresen

James

I said

"Here's the thing. I think we can completely disregard this secondary effect, that causes mass to experience weight and additional value of time dilation. For our calculations, I suspect we can treat the value of mass C, and its proportional slowing as it approaches the center of the galaxy, to be entirely proportional to the value that a photon slows as it approaches the center of the galaxy."

You said

"I think you are probably correct that the secondary effect can be disregarded at least until it is seen what the primary effects reveals. I am not understanding why you say the secondary effect causes mass to experience weight. In the equation f=ma, weight would be the letter 'f'. I assume you know this. I want to be certain that we are using the same meanings for words. Why does the secondary effect "give mass weight"? "

Has my diagram clarified this question for you? Newton formulated F=ma using kgs, but I assume you will have great delight plugging in your own mass unit here. So we will define mass solely in terms of its energy content, which are in units of velocity C? So the "a" acceleration corresponds to weight, and is only a fraction of the total value of mass C. Afterall, if mass was expressing its full energy potential C as acceleration, a body would be moving through space at the speed of light. The proportion of overall value of mass C, and weight as acceleration, corresponds to a distortion in the masses inverse acceleration, which corresponds to gravitational potential.

Weight is an effective measure of the proportion of mass distortion, that is imposed on a body by gravitational potential.

Mass acceleration in response to gravitational potential (weight), is just a redirection of a proportion of matters internal motions, inverse mass velocity. Its just a redirection of the activity which mass is already busy doing.

Steve

Steven Andresen

James

I've been thinking about what you said here.

"If my responses are coming across as being dictatorial, that is not my intent. My intent is to make sure that both of our positions and ideas are clear. That way, credit goes where it belongs. For example, if your idea about space proves to be correct, then it will be clear that I was wrong period. "

I understand some of your concerns, however please don't assume I understand all of them. Voice your specific considerations so that we can discuss them please?

I recall reading one of your forum discussions with some nameless guy, and he realized you were onto something very interesting indeed. But then he proceeded to claim he had written fragment of something similar down in years past, and that if it was realised to be a discovery, then he would be deserving of the credit. It occurred to me at the time, that he might have approached a consideration very similar, but if he didnt provide the very necessary wider context of considerations, like your further body of work. If he didnt present the particulars that make it an interesting discovery, then he did not discover it. I guess the world is full of would be poaches like this, as you and I are well aware.

That is not me however. From the moment I first came across your work, I have acknowledged and have been singing your praises for what it has been teaching me. And this will not change. You have developed an approach to unified physical units, that I believe will ultimately be validated. The credit goes to you in this regard, and my only credit in respect of it, is that I realized it's validity when I read it. I believe you have done a great thing, and I would love to see you achieve wider recognition for your wonderful work. I believe the units of measure you have envisioned, will provide the means to calculate my vision for relativity. This is where I see the extended benefit relating to myself.

What I would like to be recognised for, that is to say (if we turn out to be correct). Is that I had successfully envisioned a version of relativity, that accounted for anomalous galaxy motions. But only to the extent that I can provide prior timestamped accounts for. And of course this doesn't exclude you from being able to claim credit for the same thing. I would be delighted in sharing ownership of common realizations, with somebody as accomplished as yourself. This will only add to my personal sense of achievement.

It is very clear for me that you will add considerable value to the proposed cooperation we now consider. Your body of work is so well crafted and presented, and so it is easy for me to make this judgement. Therefore it is easy for me to accept a shared credit for any discoveries which we will jointly make. I understand however, that my work is a little harder to assess than your own. Its presentation is less formal and not as well defined. It is presented in a self-taught method, which will take time for you to fully appreciate. So what I propose to you, is please except my intention for equal collaboration for the project we now undertake, on the proviso that my contribution over the next few weeks proves useful, and that any prior discoveries I will claim to have made prior to our cooperation, will be evidenced by my prior timestamped works.

I think we might be about to achieve something wonderful, and I want to wholly enjoy the process. I want us to work collaboratively as equals and trust that if we should be successful, then each other's success will also be our own. I am not focused on glories and the like. I am only focused on our collaboration and what we seek to achieve.

Steve

Steven Andresen

James

You said

"The distribution of masses should in principle tell us how the speed of light changes. However, that appears to me to be a difficult calculation."

Yes you are right. But I think I know a short cut in thinking that will steer us in the right direction, but working backwards from mass to derive photon velocity. It uses my approach at thinking in terms of symmetries and proportions.

Goes something like this, but I put this forward tentatively for discussion.

1. We know that galaxy star density falls off by square of the radius from galaxy centre.

2. We know that galaxy rotation curves remain flat, as though the galaxy density remains constant from inner to outer.

Tentative conclusion: If we know that it is a variable of mass that is responsible for this discrepancy, then the value of mass C must fall off by square of the radius from galaxy centre, to create a galaxy of constant mass density throughout. And therefore, photons must also increase their velocity by square of the radius from galaxy centre.

Are there any obvious problems with this?

A test would be, if velocity dispersion of galaxy groups, matches the same general relationship. However mass density dispersion of galaxy groups will not be the same as our spiral galaxy. So we will need to work out the proportional equivalent.

Steve

James Putnam

I asked: Why does the secondary effect "give mass weight"? "

You said: Has my diagram clarified this question for you? Newton formulated F=ma using kgs, but I assume you will have great delight plugging in your own mass unit here. So we will define mass solely in terms of its energy content, which are in units of velocity C? So the "a" acceleration corresponds to weight, and is only a fraction of the total value of mass C. Afterall, if mass was expressing its full energy potential C as acceleration, a body would be moving through space at the speed of light. The proportion of overall value of mass C, and weight as acceleration, corresponds to a distortion in the masses inverse acceleration, which corresponds to gravitational potential.

You still: Weight is an effective measure of the proportion of mass distortion, that is imposed on a body by gravitational potential.

You again: Mass acceleration in response to gravitational potential (weight), is just a redirection of a proportion of matters internal motions, inverse mass velocity. Its just a redirection of the activity which mass is already busy doing.

I was writing this message: I need to respond to representations of my ideas that I understand to not be accurate. This has been necessary for as long as I have been on the Internet. I know your intentions are good. In discussions, I also have to make it clear what I agree with and what I disagree with. If I don't constantly make this clear, then some readers believe I accept things that I don't accept or that I don't know things that I do know. This last point is why I responded to your statement that "mass experiences weight" or as you later said "mass and weight are the same thing". Weight is a force. Mass is not a force. The units for each are not the same because they are not the same things. They are related to each other. While working with words, one can discuss the relationship between mass and weight. One can think and imagine and propose a nature for that relationship. But when it comes to adding in the necessary mathematics, it is the units that one will be working with.

I don't say that space has properties. I know of no evidence that space has properties or suffers effects or causes effects. There is no evidence nor is there any physics that shows that space has properties other than providing room for us to move around in. Space is a naturally indefinable property meaning it is a naturally inexplicable property. It has no units and has never been used in physics equations. There is no sample of energy in any laboratory anywhere in the world. No one can produce even a thimble full of a substance that is energy.

There is far more to the universe than that which theoretical physics describes. Theoretical physics consists of a severely limited mechanical interpretation of the universe. It does not know what cause is. Its empirical evidence consists only of effects. We know what cause does but not what cause is. Theorists think that they know what cause is. One of their imagined causes is 'energy' It is their mechanical version of 'the Whizzard'. It has even been credited with bringing our universe and innumerable others into existence. Energy must contain something of everything in order to pull that one off. Its one of the ways in which theoretical physics gives the false impression that it rises above the mechanical level. The Universe certainly is far more than mechanics, but, theoretical physics does not teach us about the "far more" properties of the universe. It does not predict nor explain the existence of intelligent life.

I was attempting to clarify the meanings of my work because when you speak of it now, you aren't saying what I mean. Now continuing this effort in response to your latest messages:

Your words: So we will define mass solely in terms of its energy content, which are in units of velocity C? So the "a" acceleration corresponds to weight, and is only a fraction of the total value of mass C. Afterall, if mass was expressing its full energy potential C as acceleration, a body would be moving through space at the speed of light. The proportion of overall value of mass C, and weight as acceleration, corresponds to a distortion in the masses inverse acceleration, which corresponds to gravitational potential.

My words: This is not correct. I won't continue, as I tried to do above,

to correct this. I expressed my concern for keeping our positions clear. Perhaps it would have been better to stress my concern for accuracy. It would be best for you to approach the problem of excessive speeds in our galaxy by fitting it into your own view. With regard to the use of my units, I wouldn't use them. When addressing mass, I would refer to units of kilograms, etc. My first act would be to calculate an estimate on how the speed of light varies as a function of distance from the center of the galaxy. Readers will likely resist the idea of a variable speed of light, so that would be enough of a change to propose at first. If my results were revealing in some new important way, then I would move into a fuller explanation.

My words: I haven't responded by correcting everything that I think you have wrongly stated about the meanings and implications of my work. I want you to recognize that I am having to fill my messages with attempts to clarify my work to readers. With regard to the Galaxy, this is the page that I am currently looking at. Another is this page.

James Putnam

Steven,

I neglected to add your name to the beginning of my last message. I see you posted a new message. I would choose to work with "2. We know that galaxy rotation curves remain flat, as though the galaxy density remains constant from inner to outer."

James Putnam

Steven Andresen

James

I'm on the tablet right now, clumsy to write on so I'll make it short for now. You seam to be wrestling with the idea that people will assume my expressions are yours. And that every time my expression doesn't entirely conform to your work, you need clarify it for every bodies sake and mine. This creates a lot of work for you. And I think you will find that people won't assume my opinions are yours. Not very often anyway.

I don't think it reasonable for our prospective cooperation, that I adopt entirely your approach, or that you adopt mine. And we don't need to know everything of each others views or theory for us to find useful middle ground. I don't think we need to micro manage every possible meaning and definition. We, re both looking at the same aspect of physics in search of a correlation of nature. It seams we both have an inkling this correlation might be here, and I'm sure we will both appreciate it's significant, perhaps partly in our own ways, if it should turn up. I think we could base our mutual understanding around the search for this correlation, without worrying to much about anything else.

I will certainly seek a clearer understanding of your views as time goes by, and perhaps you will become familiar with mine in time. But let's not hold up this task until then, of identifying a variable Mass correlation with galaxy velocities.

To everybody else who might be reading. James and I have very different approaches to each other, and our individual ideas and opinions should not be mistaken for each others. But it seams there is a commonality at the heart of each of our views which speaks to one another. And so dispite our different approaches we seek a possible common goal.

How does that sound James?

Steven andresen

Steven Andresen

James

You dont think this is correct?

1. We know that galaxy star density falls off by square of the radius from galaxy centre.

But yes, this is potentially useful, I'm glad you agree.

2. We know that galaxy rotation curves remain flat, as though the galaxy density remains constant from inner to outer.

Further to my last message. Each of us has approached these understandings from a completely different perspective, so its understandable we'll have differing methods, expressions and views. To put it in simple terms, you have come at this from the perspective of honouring empirically derived measurables, and with your emphasis for striping away unsubstantiated theory. Excellent instincts James, and I think your reasoning and methods are going to prove very unfortuitous.

See what I did there? unfortuitous isnt even a word, but it still passes on effective meaning. It would annoy my grammar teacher, but I only care about passing on effective meaning. Correct grammer can be arbitrary in this regard.

You see I came at this whole puzzle of universal physics from trying to understand what nature is actually doing. And so I have come through to a level of understanding about things in a very organic naturalistic approach, which does not honour conventional taught physics grammar. I do not speak precise convention, and nor do I have ambitions to attempt training my brain to ridged frameworks. I leave this punishment to those that feel they must. The question is then, can such an undisciplined naturalistic approach lead to an understanding, which can complement your own very particular and correct approach? And I suggest we dont have an answer you should be satisfied with yet, because we havent uncovered this correlation we are in search of. But there seams to be something about my expression you appreciate. If we do come to uncover this correlation where we anticipate it to be, then I hope you will not assume my method uncovered a truth purely by chance. And I hope you will then ask, why did steve's approach and mine collectively uncover a meaningful correlation of nature? But let us worry about that if and when it happens.

Can you define in simplest terms, the unit for mass we will be applying for our calculations please? Once I understand this, then I will ask, how do we multiply that value according to light-field potential (gravitational potential)

Please stick with me James, and please relax your disciplined approach to make an allowance for me please?

Sincerely

Steve

James Putnam

Steven,

"You seam to be wrestling with the idea that people will assume my expressions are yours. And that every time my expression doesn't entirely conform to your work, you need clarify it for every bodies sake and mine."

It is only representations and interpretations of my own work that I need to keep accurate. I didn't address this quote below yet. It appears to me to be an interpretation of the consequences of my definition for mass? Is it instead an interpretation of the consequences of your definition for mass?:

" ... So we will define mass solely in terms of its energy content, which are in units of velocity C? So the "a" acceleration corresponds to weight, and is only a fraction of the total value of mass C. Afterall, if mass was expressing its full energy potential C as acceleration, a body would be moving through space at the speed of light. The proportion of overall value of mass C, and weight as acceleration, corresponds to a distortion in the masses inverse acceleration, which corresponds to gravitational potential."

I understand that it is your opinion. However, if it is referring to consequences and uses of my definition for mass, then I do have to correct it. There is no avoiding it.

James Putnam

Steven,

"You dont think this is correct?

1. We know that galaxy star density falls off by square of the radius from galaxy centre.

But yes, this is potentially useful, I'm glad you agree.

2. We know that galaxy rotation curves remain flat, as though the galaxy density remains constant from inner to outer."

Both are correct. The first is the expected theoretical prediction. It does not make the correct prediction. I can see where it would lead as far as predicting how the speed of light would vary with distance. The difference between pursuing this result and pursuing the result of the second one is that this first one does not agree with empirical evidence. I wan't to be able to account for excessive velocities with respect to distance. The second one is giving me the empirical evidence that I need to learn from. I can't see yet what it may be revealing to us without producing its prediction for the variation of the speed of light with respect to distance. Even after producing that result, I still may not learn the reason for excessive velocities, but, I may recognize what the next step needs to be.

Emphasizing the difference of importance for me between the two listings: The first one does not follow from empirical evidence so I don't expect it to help me learn what the empirical evidence is revealing. The second is a report of actual empirical evidence. I would choose to work with it because I expect the empirical evidence to help me learn the reason for the excessive velocities. I definitely am not following the lead of theoretical physicists and accepting the idea that there is Dark Matter. There may be, but I will have to learn that from the empirical evidence. We have what I consider to be a great advantage over the guess of theoretical physics. We have completed definitions for the 'indefinables' and a mathematical framework that exhibits fundamental unity. Theoretical physics has neither. Also, we have the advantage of the use of the conservation of acceleration. The radial accelerations with respect to distance for the contents of the galaxy are equal but opposite to the acceleration of light with respect to distance. The second entry listed gives me the radial accelerations of the contents of the galaxy with respect to distance.

An unconnected point for me to add: Everything of scientific value that I have posted on the Internet automatically became public domain property. That is the law. I can't and don't want to prevent anyone from using it. I am entitled to the protection of my own presentations of it. I am also entitled to receive credit for originating it when others make use of it. Practically speaking, I don't concern myself with that. However, I will protect it from misrepresentations. I have to. Misrepresentation has been by far the most common treatment of it, by professionals even more than by laymen.

James Putnam

kurt stocklmeir

Gina - You used my name and talked about your theories. I thought may be you wanted me to say some thing about your theories - I guess I was wrong. I did not want to say any thing about your theories. I do not like saying any thing about the theories of people if I do not know them. I thought may be it would be an insult to you if I did not say some thing to you. I said a small number of things because I was trying to be nice. I was not trying to abuse you. A lot of people who know me ask me what I think because they know I tell the truth. I do not ever lie. I was friends with some physics people for years - they talked to me about their theories - some times they were wrong - I told the truth - they changed their theories - they got good theories. They did not ever get mad at me because they knew I was trying to help. I am not a weed but if I say some thing I will not lie.

Kurt Stocklmeir

Georgina Woodward

Kurt,

I thought that even though you had presented some physics ideas that seemed bizarre to me perhaps we could have a conversation about physics if we were on the same wavelength. But alas I think we fail to understand each other. We have very different ways of thinking about things. I have no need for you to tell me the truth as you see it. Though I thank you for doing and saying what you considered to be nice. Kind regards Georgina

Steven Andresen

James

It seams we're working through a couple of general misunderstandings, but hopefully we will learn to minimize these.

The main misunderstanding is that you felt my description of mass was an attempt at interpreting your own. This was not the case, as it was my own interpretation. However I fully understand why you are sensitive towards other peoples taking you out of context and then attempting to speak towards your representations. So anyway, I'm glad there was a good reason you were talking like that, because it came across as worryingly dysfunctional to me. I would like for us the keep this train on the tracks.

If I am trying to interpret your work James, it will be posed as a question, as I would not presume to speak on your behalf. If you hear me talking about weight as a distortion of mass, or something equally unfamiliar to you, then it is fairly safe for you to presume it is my approach I am referring too. I have found myself splicing a couple of your terms into my expression. Like "inverse mass" for example. Is it confusing for you that I adopt some of your terminologies?

I find your rejection of the term "energy" to be an interesting idea, and I relate to your well justified reasons. The current use of the term "energy" as an in-cohesive book keeping concept, is incomplete, contradictory. Perhaps I might drop its use on principle, that whenever I use it, it infers a great deal of conceptual junk into my speech. But I am not yet disciplined to do this, so I might still use it from time to time. But for future reference, if you find that I do. Then I consider energy, force, work, velocity, to all be entirely equivalent to one another. Because the only action that occurs in this universe is mediated by Gauge Bosons, and there energy, force, work function is based entirely on consideration of "velocity".

But I dont want to spend much time making these distinctions, at the expense of spending time on the main theme of our mutual interest. I would rather be discussing the Tully Fisher relation right now, rather than defining proper use of the "energy" term. There is mainstream interpretations, then your interpretations, then mine. Lets us try to speak clearly, even if precise is unobtainable. I have limited time for this, as I am sure you do also. So let us be pragmatic even if its at the expense of some proficiency. I dont think the task we attempt needs perfect prose, as its just considerations of mass and velocities.

Oh and small misunderstanding concerning the following. This refers to the star number density distribution, which is an observation and not a prediction. The number of stars falls off by the square of r.

1. We know that galaxy star density falls off by square of the radius from galaxy centre.

If we can, let us just focus in on the task at hand, and make unspoken allowances for one another when we can, to aid less distractions. I will not try to speak on your behalf, or on behalf of your work, so please dont let this worry you.

Steven Andresen

James

You said

"Emphasizing the difference of importance for me between the two listings: The first one does not follow from empirical evidence so I don't expect it to help me learn what the empirical evidence is revealing. The second is a report of actual empirical evidence. I would choose to work with it because I expect the empirical evidence to help me learn the reason for the excessive velocities. I definitely am not following the lead of theoretical physicists and accepting the idea that there is Dark Matter. There may be, but I will have to learn that from the empirical evidence. We have what I consider to be a great advantage over the guess of theoretical physics. We have completed definitions for the 'indefinables' and a mathematical framework that exhibits fundamental unity. Theoretical physics has neither. Also, we have the advantage of the use of the conservation of acceleration. The radial accelerations with respect to distance for the contents of the galaxy are equal but opposite to the acceleration of light with respect to distance. The second entry listed gives me the radial accelerations of the contents of the galaxy with respect to distance. "

Music to my ears. Extremely positive and evidently true. You were born to do this, and when I get home I'll write up another couple of reasons to be optimistic. Til then.....

Steve

James Putnam

Steven,

OK. Well said. Things are clearer to me: Your descriptions your way! I did misread #1. Thank you for pointing that out. However, if it was used to predict how velocity varies with distance, it would yield a wrong prediction. My preference is to work with #2 because it shows the effect of whatever is out there seen and unseen. I will go ahead and calculate how the speed of light varies with distance in accordance with #2.

James Putnam

[deleted]

James

Very good. And now I think I have something extraordinary to share, and a reason why you and I are justified in take what we're doing here quite seriously. It concerns how our approach relates to the Tully Fisher Relation, which I suggest, could not be more interesting. This formula which is so easy to infer from a variable speed of light theory, couldn't match the TFR any better.

Two earlier points

1. We know that galaxy star number densities falls off by square of the radius from galaxy centre. So conventional theory presumes that galaxy mass density follows suit, which deviates from observed rotation velocities.

2. We know that galaxy rotation curves remain flat, as though the galaxy density remains constant from inner to outer. Convention knows this is an issue with mass, but they don't know to prescribe a variable speed of light to solve the discrepancy, so they add invisible mass.

The Tully Fisher Relation indicates that there is a very strict pattern between the value of overall baryons in a galaxy, and its inferred overall mass including dark matter. The implication is, that this weird invisible dark matter only ever comes in very strict proportions with observable baryons, even though its properties are expected to be very different from baryons, and might therefore be expected to clump differently. Why would the universe ration out such exacting amounts of dark matter and Baryon proportions? So the solution to dark matter needs to explain this unlikely circumstance. The relationship is so tight, it is even possible to use the galaxy baryon luminosity, and the rotational velocity which has to be incorporating exacting quantities of hypothetical Dark Matter, to then infer a galaxy distance measure. Which amazingly turns out to be a pretty accurate method. So the link between galaxy baryon luminosity and galaxy rotation velocities is very strong and reliable. Such that very exacting amounts of dark matter are needed, baryons to the power of four!! It is very hard for convention to answer to this relationship, perhaps impossible?

The simple formula you and I are proposing models the Tully Fisher relation perfectly, mass additional to baryons, to the power of four. We are going to own the Tully fisher relation. How do you feel about that?

This isn't the only aspect of our approach which performs better than conventional approaches. I'll continue to list them off.

Steve

James Putnam

Steven,

"How do you feel about that?" Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I haven't considered it. I am learning something.

James Putnam

Steven Andresen

James

Enjoy these considerations James. Not only do they provide strong indication we're on the right track, and how to calibrate our formula's, but ultimately they will provide a mathematical proof that others will find hard to ignore. A Relativity that is built of your units, plus the reasoning you are so practiced at expressing, that physics needs to be based entirely on empirical evidence and measures. A potent mix. This is going to be hard for people to ignore.

I think of the Tully Fisher relation in terms of galaxy geometries, and portioning out the mass densities over different spreads and volumes for proportion comparatives. Easy for me to think in these terms, but harder to explain in simple terms. But I'll see if I can come up with something useful.

And I'll list off some other interesting general evidences for our approach soon.

Steve

Steven Andresen

James

Once we get the the point, where we can show that galaxy cluster motions conform to this approach, just as well as galaxy rotation curves, including cuspy core problem. We'll what can I say that wont sound presumptuous?

Steve

Steve Agnew

God bless it...these threads are nearly impossible to follow...

You say that your particles show interference and so they must have phase. Can you show the wavefunction then with phase please? Your essay seems so classical that phase factors are not apparent.

Once your particles have quantum phase, they will obey the Schrodinger equation and so your theory will be fine, but no classical. Once your theory allows a single particle to interfere with itself it will need to be quantum.

In a quantum universe, gravity shows interference effects, but only for black holes.

The fine structure constant is very well defined since it is how the electron interferes with itself. That is why QED calculates the gyromagnetic ratio to a precision way beyond current measurement precision.

The fine structure constant is a very important part of physical reality and yet there does not seem to be any role for it in your model of reality.

« Previous Page Next Page »