Question for Ark- Quantum Physics

[Fester]

ummm.. hi

I'll start by saying I have never studied physics formally at any time, I've only read stuff. I used to have a copy of "The Nature of Space and Time" (Hawking/Penrose). I added it to get a deal on 6 books I ordered (along with "The Iliad, "The Odyssey" and "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain", funny enough), thinking I'd be able to understand it. Hahahaha!
However, I persevered, and, well, I didn't get it, but i sort of had a general idea about curved space and gravity and time and black holes and Schrodinger's cat, and how light is a wave and particle at the same time etc., etc..
Ok, to the point.

I just recently read (twice, in fact) an article entitled "Dirac's Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy", by Donald Hotson. http://www.pearl-hifi.com/11_Spirited_Growth/01_Good_Sci/Diracs_Sea_of_Neg_Energy.pdf I feel completely blown away. It makes so much sense, the argument made so eloquently... well to me anyway. It really seems to be a working unified theory.... but then again, I only understand the words and the logic, and the idea, not the actual maths.

Might I be so bold as to ask, could you have a look at it? And my question is, is it right? If it isn't, could you explain why?
thank you


To everyone- I post it on here because if it is right, then shouldn't everyone here have a look? It seems to me that it could be a useful tool for understanding many "spiritual" things. After all, how can it be a theory of everything if there's anything it can't be used to explain?

My thinking goes like this. First off, it's a sea of POSITIVE energy. If there's anything he got right, it's that positive=attractive and negative=repulsive should be true in electromagnetism as it is in language. So we have an infinite (cosmic) ocean of positive energy, which acts as if it is self aware (mind), and all of 4 dimensional reality is actually made up of negatively charged particles, which are really just "frames of the film" and the wave is the "film" because the wave knows where the particle is going but the particle only knows where it is and where it's been, and that our four "real" directions are actually a projection from the six "imaginary" directions... I find myself trying to imagine myself as a particle in 3rd density, moving on a 4D wave, in an ocean that is the cosmic mind, somehow. Following that logic would say that if I am that particle, being carried on wave, then the shift from 3D to 4D involves becoming the wave. Like an ice cube melting into a wave of water, maybe. Heat is a destructive/breaking apart/repulsive type energy, so using the above argument should be called negative energy- meaning the particle becomes the wave when it has lost enough negative energy....

Or: if the positive energy/STO ocean is the cosmic mind- 7D (+electrons, +positrons)
Call 1D maybe the "air" above the ocean, or "negative/STS ocean" (-electrons, -positrons)
The surface/interface would be 2D (animals and such- living matter)
Say our reality is 3D (us- living and self-aware matter) (maybe an iceberg haha)
The "waves" are 4D (self aware, and having lost or gained enough negative energy to have become homogenous with one of the oceans, able to interact upon many waves)
if 5D is the afterlife... hmmm.... Precipitation?
the "currents" are 6D, maybe?
and 7D and 1D, + and -, are yin and yang, 2 halves of the cosmic mind joining the circle... making a spiral . Or a double helix might be more appropriate- I'm starting to see the limits of the 2 oceans analogy.

Wow. I feel so far out on a limb here I'm standing on a leaf. I hope I've made at least a little sense. If I've added to the noise, I'm sorry. I'm sincerely trying to add signal, here. Uhh, thanks for your time :) and I'll get off the soapbox now

 

[ark]

OK. Will look at it and tell my comments.

 

[ark]

Alright, looked into the paper. No math, therefore I had to check his sources. The main source for his claim that:

"Despite these successes, the physics community greeted it
with alarm and outrage. This was because the equation gave
twice as many states as they thought it should have. They
expected a Y with two components; but this equation gave
four. After the discovery of the positron, it was realized that its
four solutions call for electrons and positrons of positive energy,
and electrons and positrons of negative energy (Pais, 1994)."


Pais, A. 1994. Inward Bound, Oxford Univ. Press, New York.

(I have 1988 edition)

Excellent book, by the way. Unfortunately there are no page references. So, I went through Pais' semi-popular book to check what exactly he wrote. Evidently your author completely misunderstood what Pais wrote, then twisted it.

I suggest you read Pais, read carefully, even if it would take a month or so, and then come back with your questions. We will then have some common basis for the discussion, and you will not have to rely on just my opinion.

Sounds reasonable?

 

[Fester]

hey thanx :)
was not expecting such a quick reply. I'll have a look at the library for that book, and have a read. It couldn't be much worse than "The Nature of Space and Time"... at times I felt like my brain was tryin to crawl out my ear to look up my nose or something

 

[aaronfransen]

Now granted I'm no physicist myself, but it seems to me that paper just proved the whole Electric Universe theory, and in fact gave much stronger reasoning for the drivers behind it (particularly the idea that a Bose-Einstein condensate is at the root of all reality).

Mind blowing actually.

 

[bobsaget]

Before I begin this I'm going to state some things: 1. if you look at this negatively it WILL NOT MAKE SENSE. I cannot stress that more. Come at it with an OPEN mind. 2. I would have messaged Ark if I could have. 3. To understand this you must be very flexible in your thinking.

Now lets begin, I came across an article on electromagnetics. All of what he said seems possible using the Right formulas.

“Consider for example the electrodynamics of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomena depend only on relative motion between that conductor and the magnet If the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, the magnet produces a current where parts of the conductor are located. If the magnet is stationary and the conductor is in motion, we find an electromotive force in the conductor which gives rise to electric currents of the same path and intensity”.

That is what we described for “deflection” above. Yet in the case of “torque”, many different relative velocities must remain (approximately) symmetric about the magnetic centre. If we were to say for example that the “magnet is moving while the electron is stationary” for vr1, that would change the values of vr2, vr3, vr4 and so on. Those currents could no longer act collectively to produce “torque”, which is a physically real phenomenon, and not some theory written on a piece of paper.

The phenomenon of “absolute rotation” has always contradicted special relativity in mechanical terms (see Absolute_rotation). Here we have presented a further electrodynamic contradiction, courtesy of our friends from the stars. It is not something which I thought of myself. It is something which was drawn carefully and mysteriously in the fields.

Electrodynamics needs to be described by a four-dimensional theory, but that does not mean it has to be described by just one kind of four-dimensional theory (special relativity)

It seems clear that electrodynamics needs to be described by some kind of four-dimensional theory, where “electricity” seen at rest may change into “magnetism” when seen in motion. Yet that does not mean it has to be described by just one kind of four-dimensional theory, based only on special relativity.

We ought to study the experimental observations first, then look for a mathematical theory later. We should not exclude any reliable observations (such as Howard Johnson’s magnetic motor, or a preferred frame of reference for the homopolar motor) just because they seem inconsistent with some presumed theory. The true theory could even be five-dimensional, as was shown in crops at Jubilee Plantation on August 15, 2011 (see jubilee-plantation-some-digressions ).

Let us briefly review the basics. If a charged particle remains stationary with v = 0, relative to a nearby magnet, it cannot move to form a “current loop”. Thus it cannot interact with a nearby magnetic field since v = 0 in v x B. Still it may create a directional flow of magnetism by the “right hand rule” close to itself. This is probably due to forces or structures on a subatomic scale which we do not yet understand.

For v = 0, such energetic flows will be directed through time t rather than through space xyz. This seems to be why we call one phenomenon “electricity” and the other “magnetism”. The intrinsic twist of that subatomic filament, as it proceeds forward through time t for v = 0, or space xyz for non-zero values of v, seems to be the source of electricity or magnetism. It may also be what causes two current loops, internal to any magnetic field, to send virtual waves of energy up or down toward the North or South poles, in clockwise or anti-clockwise senses.

When any two magnetic flows join together, they may create a real photon which travels at light speed c. If two magnetic flows remain separate, they can only create “magnetic fields” which have the potential to form real photons, but have not done so yet (“virtual particles”). We see likewise in diffraction that “virtual particles”, which are scattered off electrons in atoms, have the potential to form real photons which may be counted by a detector
If we wish to keep the favorable features of special relativity, while accommodating other observations which have been excluded so far from academic physics, we may have to change our underlying model for the magnetic field. We may also have to accept that there are preferred frameworks in space, consistent with various phenomena involving absolute rotation in mechanics or electrodynamics.

Preferred frames of reference cannot be described (to my understanding) in the usual non-Euclidean geometries of special relativity. If we wish to describe them by some kind of Euclidean geometry, to permit “absolute rotation”, we would probably need to create a mathematical fiction where light speed c becomes a 90 o right angle in four.
-dimensional angle between magnet and conductor, or between two moving bodies. Each source would still see a projection of the other object in three rather than four dimensions, yet preferred frames of absolute rotation would be allowed."

 

[bobsaget]

The theory of relativity is inferior to the UFT for one reason:it only applies algebra and not geometry. The UFT combines both and throws all "sensible" math laws out of the window. That's why this theory would be very easy to teach to a child and not an adult. I assume the ability to understand the UFT is akin to the philospohers stone. One must have knowledge and have "oneness " so to speak, for it to be achievable. I think this is what the man who built coral castle achieved or nearly did. Everything that is something can be explained with math, and only until we find every "wrong" way to apply it, we will find the right answer.
Now, please keep questions and comments positive folks.

 

[Lisa Guliani]

I'm a little confused. Why are you responding to a question that is specifically directed to Ark, bobsaget?

 

[bobsaget]

I can't message him. Its off limits until I post more. This should be open to all mathematicians though, one perspective and understanding isn't very conclusive.

 

[obyvatel]

Before I begin this I'm going to state some things: 1. if you look at this negatively it WILL NOT MAKE SENSE. I cannot stress that more. Come at it with an OPEN mind. 2. I would have messaged Ark if I could have. 3. To understand this you must be very flexible in your thinking.

Now lets begin, I came across an article on electromagnetics. All of what he said seems possible using the Right formulas.

It is courteous to cite sources when you use other's work. This appears to come from an article (_http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/anasazi/fringe2012g.html) which talks about "friendly space brothers trying to save humanity" - a topic that has been discussed at length in the New Age Cointelpro section of the forum. Which is why perhaps your insistence on "not looking at it negatively". Are you deliberately posting disinformation?

 

[anart]

I'm a little confused. Why are you responding to a question that is specifically directed to Ark, bobsaget?

Just for future reference, it's because bobsaget has a baked noodle - http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,30343.msg394626.html#msg394626

 

[irjO]

Before I begin this I'm going to state some things: 1. if you look at this negatively it WILL NOT MAKE SENSE. I cannot stress that more. Come at it with an OPEN mind. 2. I would have messaged Ark if I could have. 3. To understand this you must be very flexible in your thinking.

1.- don't understand your remark of "who's looking what negatively". 2.- when you mean 'messaged' you mean privately? because if is that what you mean then why doing that in a private message? this forum has been created to share data and knowledge and with the 3.- :

Now lets begin, I came across an article on electromagnetics. All of what he said seems possible using the Right formulas.

“Consider for example the electrodynamics of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomena depend only on relative motion between that conductor and the magnet If the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, the magnet produces a current where parts of the conductor are located. If the magnet is stationary and the conductor is in motion, we find an electromotive force in the conductor which gives rise to electric currents of the same path and intensity”.

That is what we described for “deflection” above. Yet in the case of “torque”, many different relative velocities must remain (approximately) symmetric about the magnetic centre. If we were to say for example that the “magnet is moving while the electron is stationary” for vr1, that would change the values of vr2, vr3, vr4 and so on. Those currents could no longer act collectively to produce “torque”, which is a physically real phenomenon, and not some theory written on a piece of paper.

The phenomenon of “absolute rotation” has always contradicted special relativity in mechanical terms (see Absolute_rotation). Here we have presented a further electrodynamic contradiction, courtesy of our friends from the stars. It is not something which I thought of myself. It is something which was drawn carefully and mysteriously in the fields.

Electrodynamics needs to be described by a four-dimensional theory, but that does not mean it has to be described by just one kind of four-dimensional theory (special relativity)

It seems clear that electrodynamics needs to be described by some kind of four-dimensional theory, where “electricity” seen at rest may change into “magnetism” when seen in motion. Yet that does not mean it has to be described by just one kind of four-dimensional theory, based only on special relativity.

We ought to study the experimental observations first, then look for a mathematical theory later. We should not exclude any reliable observations (such as Howard Johnson’s magnetic motor, or a preferred frame of reference for the homopolar motor) just because they seem inconsistent with some presumed theory. The true theory could even be five-dimensional, as was shown in crops at Jubilee Plantation on August 15, 2011 (see jubilee-plantation-some-digressions ).

Let us briefly review the basics. If a charged particle remains stationary with v = 0, relative to a nearby magnet, it cannot move to form a “current loop”. Thus it cannot interact with a nearby magnetic field since v = 0 in v x B. Still it may create a directional flow of magnetism by the “right hand rule” close to itself. This is probably due to forces or structures on a subatomic scale which we do not yet understand.

For v = 0, such energetic flows will be directed through time t rather than through space xyz. This seems to be why we call one phenomenon “electricity” and the other “magnetism”. The intrinsic twist of that subatomic filament, as it proceeds forward through time t for v = 0, or space xyz for non-zero values of v, seems to be the source of electricity or magnetism. It may also be what causes two current loops, internal to any magnetic field, to send virtual waves of energy up or down toward the North or South poles, in clockwise or anti-clockwise senses.

When any two magnetic flows join together, they may create a real photon which travels at light speed c. If two magnetic flows remain separate, they can only create “magnetic fields” which have the potential to form real photons, but have not done so yet (“virtual particles”). We see likewise in diffraction that “virtual particles”, which are scattered off electrons in atoms, have the potential to form real photons which may be counted by a detector
If we wish to keep the favorable features of special relativity, while accommodating other observations which have been excluded so far from academic physics, we may have to change our underlying model for the magnetic field. We may also have to accept that there are preferred frameworks in space, consistent with various phenomena involving absolute rotation in mechanics or electrodynamics.

Preferred frames of reference cannot be described (to my understanding) in the usual non-Euclidean geometries of special relativity. If we wish to describe them by some kind of Euclidean geometry, to permit “absolute rotation”, we would probably need to create a mathematical fiction where light speed c becomes a 90 o right angle in four.
-dimensional angle between magnet and conductor, or between two moving bodies. Each source would still see a projection of the other object in three rather than four dimensions, yet preferred frames of absolute rotation would be allowed."

you have to be more flexible with your explanation.. and what is the conclusion you want to draw from all this? because if you want to share something valuable you have to explain it more easily that we can understand and follow..