For 4 Decades of my writings: click  http://www.amperefitz.com/4.decades.htm

 

Affenstall Science

Unification of the Fundamental Forces

using

Spherical, Scalar, Standing Wave Entities

 


All our astronomer scientists know – and all our colleges teach their astronomy students the same as Newton taught – that gravity acts instantly. Astronomers all know this universe can't possibly be stable if the speed of gravity is going as slow as the speed of light! It makes one wonder about present science when most of the other non-astronomer scientists believe – something entirely different – that the speed of gravity
is the same as the speed of light. What type of science is this, we believe in, that has this much disparity?

I discussed this with my astronomer friend from Yale, Tom Van Flandern before he died, and both of us agreed that for light to have aberration and gravity to be having none then the speed of gravity had to be going much, much faster than the speed of light or at least 9x1016 meters per second, which is the distance light travels in one second (3x108 meters per second) squared. Can c2 then be considered a speed? The speed of gravity? If so then it is a speed not attainable in our spacetime realm but it could be a speed of gravity – far, far above the speed of light – and so close to instantly – that most astronomers could accept this as the speed of gravity. Tom Van Flandern did.

We’ve known since 1851 – when Foucault built his pendulm in Paris – that gyroscopes, pendulums and vibrating elements all hold their positions to the stars. We know this because all these things – from our point of view here on earth – completely rotate their planes every 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds which is one sidereal day or the time it takes the earth to make one complete rotation in space (in regard to the stars).

Why can’t present science give us an explanation as to why these things hold their positions to the surrounding stars?

Why can’t present science tell us why centrifugal force also holds to the surrounding stars? And why does that force increase with the speed of rotation?

If you want a science that does answer these questions then keep reading.

I'm also satisfied that the first mathematical unification of the fundamental forces will use the method described herein.

I've been working on this problem now for more than four and a half decades. Not only can I tell you why we haven't achieved this unification so far but I also can show you how it will be done. It will be accomplished by correctly utilizing the concept of energy and momentum. All of our other concepts must only be used within very narrow parameters.

Using this Ampère-Bohr concept, you will finally see magnetism, charge and indeed all the forces as being constructed exactly the same way.

But in these Dark Ages of science today this correct type of phase indicator – Bohr’s motion – has been totally removed from the microcosm. Thus no one sees all the forces being constructed exactly the same way.

The Britannica 1997 CD says, "In QED, the electromagnetic interactions of charged particles are described through the emission and subsequent absorption of massless photons, best known as the "particles" of light; such interactions are not possible between uncharged, electrically neutral particles. The strong force is observed to behave in a similar way . . ."

In the standard model, both photons and strong force gluons are thus classified as boson quantum exchange particles.

But beware, because this boson exchange system – if not seen correctly as a sigma bond – can blind you: You may lose sight of this universe everlastingly making an attempt to better balance toward neutral where both spins and orbits are all in different directions and not concentrated in a single direction.

Magnetism and charge – too many electron spins/orbits in one direction – are, therefore, both unbalanced spin-orbit conditions; the more the unbalance, the greater the force. Magnetism is the unbalance as a vector force and charge is a similar composite unbalance seen as a scalar force. This universe always seeks to establish a balanced – average out of phase situation – relationship between everything. It does this via minimum phase sigma and pi bonding (binding) shifts.

This Ampère-Bohr concept shows us that both magnetism and charge come about because of
relative motion (really a phase relationship). It's all phase relationships, which are easiest seen as relative motion because we seem to understand motion better than phase.

Another reason it's easiest seen – even by scientists – as relative motion today is because we need more complete frequency rules along with the necessary super-computers before we can accurately view it as phase relationships. So for now simply view it as relative motion. Again, use both eyes as you look into this world of science.

All of our
NATURAL LAWS stem from in phase and out of phase items with the surroundings giving an average out of phase conditioning.

Therefore, you can simplify force: See force as more spacetime, than average, where repulsive force exists and less spacetime, than average, where an attractive force exists, similar to general relativity (GR).


Thus, the tensor math of
GR shows you exactly what the origin of space is: It's telling us essentially that spacetime and force are, in a way, equivalent. Isn't this similar to mass and energy being equivalent in E=mc2 ?

Space is nothing more than the "average force field" between surrounding entities while force is the same as in GR: force is the difference – either more or less – of this "average field" between certain separate entities. As we proceed, you will see that this concept of quanta is absolutely necessary to completely understand both space and force.

In other words, space is the "average out of phase amount" while force is the same as in GR: force is the difference – either more or less – of this "average out of phase amount" between entities.

Therefore we have a different type of space for the electron as we have for the higher frequency quark. This, believe it or not, is the reason for c2 and the apparent acceleration we find with the principle of equivalence. More about all this later, so keep reading.

As noted astronomer Tom Van Flandern once stated, "You cannot square a speed." Ah, but you can square the distance: So here it is nonetheless, the speed of light (distance) squared, c2.

What's the full reason this quantity c2 (speed of light squared) appears in our math? That's a good question and a good bit of what this paper is all about.

I'll give one reason now, and this is that certain frequencies in the quark realm are the square – a harmonic – of similar frequencies in the realm of the electron.

Tom Van Flandern and I discussed the impossibility of squaring a speed in our spacetime realm. But in this – Wolff-Schrödinger frequency universe – the frequency band of our spacetime realm is a bit lower than the orbital frequency of the electron.

Even I was slow to realize that Tom Van Flandern was absolutely correct and that the quantity c2 itself was telling us it could definitely not emanate in our spacetime realm or the space time realm of the electron; therefore it is being generated in the much higher quark frequency realm.

It's plain to see what c and c2 are: Both can be visualized as speeds at which space in these respective systems are actually being created. Space is being produced in the electron’s realm at the speed of c. Space is being produced in the quark realm at the speed of c2. (as seen here on earth). These are therefore maximum speeds for those respective gauges or spacetime realms. These respective gauges balance out at these maximum speeds as well.

The maximum speed c – in our spacetime realm – can be visualized as a phase ratio of the electron's spin frequency to its main scalar frequency. Someday future super-computers will view it this way too.

Einstein noted: "Gravity is a wave." Consequently, it has a certain frequency. This is the hidden secret of the origin of our NATURAL LAWS where each of the fundamental forces is in a different frequency band. Space also comes in different frequencies as well: Highest frequency space is quark produced space followed by lower frequency electron space then our space then the space produced by the various galaxies spinning which gives us the erroneous view that those galactic spiral arms are going faster than their escape velocity. This gives us four distinct, different gauges (frequency spacetime realms). Now we not only see the reason for the gauge rules of quantum mechanics but we see it's somewhat similar to – a different frequency band acts as a different dimension – what the string theorists have been telling us. The highest of these frequency spacetime realms – the quark realm – gives us inertia and the vast majority of the gravitational force, as you will soon see. The lowest galaxy spin frequency gives a different type gravity too but you will have to read my other papers to see that. Gravity has the widest frequency bandwidth of all the forces but that's elsewhere so as to keep this paper as short as possible.

You will only realize
why we have 4 distinct different gauges (frequency spacetime realms of forces) when you use the Ampère-Bohr concept using both eyes and seeing this modified standard model. You won't see this if you limit your vision by remaining only in the Dark Ages of science using the present unmodified standard model.

Once you see all this then you can solve the paradox of "action at a distance" where the past seemingly becomes involved both in obtaining light from distant stars and in the Feynman diagrams used in quantum mechanics.

The concept of fields can only be used observing multitudes of singular quantum actions (quanta). Einstein gave up on his unification of the various fields in 1954.

Einstein was correct in 1954 when he said, "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

Einstein was right: Physics cannot be based on the field concept unless it is realized that fields, like motion, must be restricted to certain spin/orbit frequency parameters. Future science will not be based on fields! Physics must be based on individual quanta (spin/orbit orientations), which when all added up simply resemble a field. In this new scalar frequency universe of Wolff and Schrödinger, the field is never a continuous structure: It's always a structure with absolute spin/orbit frequency limits of a particular entity; and this new knowledge gives us the reason why we have the various gauges, and different rules for each of them, in quantum mechanics. For instance: the QED (Quantum ElectroDynamics) gauge is limited to the spin/orbit frequency range of the electron and the QCD (Quantum ChromoDynamics) gauge is limited to the much higher spin/orbit frequency range of the quarks. Math and rules for these two gauges are entirely different.

Even though a multitude of quanta resemble a field, a quantum and a field are entirely different. So field rules and math are used only where a multitude of quantum exchanges (quanta) take place.

You cannot analyze an individual quantum energy exchange, where an orbit or spin has changed, using field rules and math.

Even our concept of motion needs to have relativity patches if speed gets too fast or mass changes too much. But we can use our concept of motion by keeping it completely within strict parameters.

First you must understand where this affenstall science has gone wrong:

Dr. Milo Wolff has shown us conclusively that electrons are standing waves that keep reproducing themselves from electrons in their surroundings. Wolff has thereby shown us why this element of reproduction is so inherent to everything in our universe. This also implies that space is something that is constantly being reproduced as well and it's the rate that space is being reproduced that brings the main reason for this paper.

The rate that space is being produced for us, here on earth, is one of the four space-time realms that will be used to unify the forces the very first time this is done. I had hoped to accomplish this myself but it seems now, with my 79th birthday behind me, that I have about run out of time.

Milo Wolff has also shown us why surroundings are so important; thus, he has shown us the reason for Mach's principle or why, as Ernst Mach stated in 1890, "The law of inertia depends on the presence of the fixed stars." (Inertial mass depends on the far distant surroundings.) Berkeley knew this even before Mach. And Einstein used this knowledge to create General Relativity. Milo Wolff is the very first person to give us a mathematical proof of Mach's principle, or that inertial mass is caused by the distant surroundings.

Quoting from the Britannica 2009 DVD "Mach's principle: It was so called by Albert Einstein after the 19th-century Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. Einstein found the hypothesis helpful in formulating his theory of general relativity-i.e., it was suggestive of a connection between geometry and matter-and attributed the idea to Mach, unaware that the English philosopher George Berkeley had proposed similar views during the 1700s. (Berkeley had argued that all motion, both uniform and nonuniform, was relative to the distant stars.)"

Dr. Wolff emphatically emphasizes that the electron is a scalar, standing wave, resonance having certain spin resonance properties.

This is exactly the type of resonance universe that Schrödinger claimed we have.

Schrödinger claimed everything we see are "appearances" and he was absolutely right.

From Britannica 2009 DVD "Gödel's proof first appeared in an article in the Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, vol. 38 (1931), on formally indeterminable propositions of the Principia Mathematica of Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell."

Kurt
Gödel proved that those who cannot see the entire universe might assume what they saw were universal laws; when instead these would really be nothing but subset rules, that applied only to their subset realm. Have we made this mistake? Are our NATURAL LAWS merely subset gauge rules, similar to those subset gauge rules used in quantum mechanics?


Now we return once again to Gödel's proof: that those who cannot see the entire universe might assume what they saw were universal laws or our
NATURAL LAWS; when instead these would really be nothing but subset gauge rules, that applied only to our subset realm.

Surprisingly our NATURAL LAWS do have gauge limits as well: The orbital frequency realm of the electron or where we use Planck's constant or h being our high frequency limit; and the spin frequencies of the galaxies in the macrocosm being much lower than our low frequency limit because our gravitational laws cease working correctly in those galaxies: We see the spiral arms of spiral galaxies as going faster than their escape velocity and this is impossible. This, by the way, is a far better explanation for the spiral arms paradox than dark matter, which no one seems to be able to find as much as needed for a total dark matter explanation.

Schrödinger's Universe
shows us that Mach's principle (same frequency surroundings) is not only necessary for inertial mass, but gravity and all the other invisible forces as well. Add to this what Van Flandern Van Flandern is telling us about the speed of gravity: 4/10/2005 Speed of Gravity is 9x1016 meters per second. Then you see exactly what c2 really is and why we must have the principle of equivalence or why both gravity and its exact opposite force, Einstein's cosmological constant, must also be seen by us as associated with the element of acceleration. I guess Saul Perlmutter Saul Perlmutter was the first to see this. This means we are in a steady state universe because this accelerated expansion is only apparent just as the acceleration of 32 ft per second2, caused by gravity is also only apparent. See 9/11/2005 Where does C2come from?

A quote from the Britannica 2009 DVD: "If one speaks in Newtonian terms, the cosmological constant could be interpreted as a repulsive force of unknown origin that could exactly balance the attraction of gravitation of all the matter in Einstein's closed universe and keep it from moving."

This repulsive force – opposite from gravity – between all the stars and galaxies, consistent with Einstein's cosmological constant would be seen as an apparent accelerating, expanding universe. This is consistent with what Milo Wolff has found because for scalar standing waves to exist, we must be in a steady state universe. Essentially both Saul Perlmutter and Milo Wolff have provided the necessary proof that we are in a steady state universe. The acceleration and expansion are only apparent just as the acceleration of 32 ft per second2 associated with gravity is only apparent.

Einstein's cosmological constant is giving us this apparent accelerated, expanding universe. No longer is it of unknown origin because now we know the involvement of c2 in producing this – out of phase – repulsive force.

Quoting from the Britannica 2009 DVD "The Supernova Cosmology Project, headed by Saul Perlmutter of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, reported on measurements of the apparent brightnesses and red shifts of 42 Type Ia supernovas. . . . not only is the rate of expansion of the universe not decelerating, but it also appears to be accelerating slightly."

Einstein died before Saul Perlmutter's group discovered this acceleration. If Einstein would have known about the acceleration then he would have known he did not blunder in 1917 and he would have told everyone that if one could not discern the acceleration of 32 ft per second2 from gravity (principle of equivalence) then one also could not discern his cosmological constant – equal but opposite force of gravity repelling all the stars and galaxies from each other – from an apparent accelerating, expanding universe.

The way our space appears to us is one space-time realm and the way space from the electron's spin appears to us is another space-time realm or foundation stone for a mathematical formula for unifying the fundamental forces. The manner in which we sense space produced by the quark spin is the third space-time realm.

Our four space-time realms are therefore four different space-time realms with four entirely different space-time intervals between which momentum can be shared along with a concept of motion.

Is Carver Mead right? Are our NATURAL LAWS so bad that we are still in the Dark Ages of science?

Do these Dark Ages of science stem mainly from Maxwell's way of looking at it? Remember Einstein proved Maxwell wrong but Maxwell's math is being used every day and is super useful and accurate provided we remain within certain parameters: we must remain within certain speed and mass parameters and be wary of the micro and macro worlds. But if we remain within these parameters then we do indeed get beneficial use and math accuracy with Maxwell's concept.

Even before Maxwell, Ampere gave us a far different method to view electricity and magnetism using
relative motion. With Ampere's method, surroundings are utilized.There is a perfect understanding of how everything works but no accuracy with Ampere's concept simply because we do not have the super-computers yet that can work out all the necessary phase details in the surroundings. Yet, there is a way it can be done now and that is by using our concept of motion in the way Ampere showed us.

If you are given another eye to see things with (Ampere's concept) then why not use it?

Feynman saw how important this concept of motion was in unification. Look at what he said:

 

A short excerpt from:

QED

The Strange Theory of Light and Matter

author

Richard P. Feynman

(Please note the emphasis Feynman puts on motion being the unifying element in all these separate fields)

". . . it was soon discovered, after Sir Isaac explained the laws of motion, that some of these apparently different things were aspects of the same thing. For example, the phenomena of sound could be completely understood in the motion of atoms in the air. So sound was no longer considered something in addition to motion. It was also discovered that heat phenomena was easily understandable from the laws of motion. In this way great globs of physics were synthesized into a simplified theory. The theory of gravitation, on the other hand, was not understandable from the laws of motion, and even today it stands isolated from the other theories. Gravitation is, so far, not understandable in terms of . . . "

motion or relative motion that produces not only gravity but all the forces,

that I explained and published in this 1966 relative motion book below:

FREE e-Book:

Read Fitz's First Book FREE

CLICK before time runs out
FREE e – BOOK

ABSTRACT of the above book:

You do NOT need to visualize four separate fundamental forces when these are really only one force that can easily be viewed by using a frequency modification of Ampere's 1825 laws

This Britannica article http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9074111 tells you about Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit who were denied the Nobel Prize in 1925. when they discovered electron spin, because of ignorance of the quantum theorists.

Quantum theorists still adamantly insist that there is no motion in the quantum realm even though we find – as Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck did – all the signs of angular momentum, that this motion produces.

Motion, space and time are all things that are restricted to one single spin/orbit frequency, spacetime realm.

Why?

Because all detectors (us too) have an oscillator in them (us) detecting exactly like a superheterodyne detector does.


Only the evidence (of
motion) can be transferred out as Wheeler and Feynman showed us.

Motion (our concept of it) only exists in subset realms of this universe and is restricted to those subset realms. The constant c proves this.

BUT

Use Occam's razor and move your mind into each separate spin/orbit frequency realm at a time and view it having our concept of motion and using Ampere's Laws and then you can see it all as one force and not the 4 fundamental forces that present science views it as.

I'm afraid that math along with our concept of motion is restricted to one single spin/orbit frequency system at a time. Each different frequency spin/orbit system is producing its own different spacetime realm.

And this has undoubtedly caused one of the main weaknesses in the standard model!

A Britannica 2009 DVD quote: "The standard model has proved a highly successful framework for predicting the interactions of quarks and leptons with great accuracy. Yet it has a number of weaknesses that lead physicists to search for a more complete theory of subatomic particles and their interactions."

Merely add the needed Ampère-Bohr indicator and Mach's principle to the standard model and you get the more complete theory everyone is looking for!

Once this is done, you will see if you read on that this new concept will give you the why for the symmetries of everything in the standard model.

In this frequency world of Schrödinger, we then see why the electron's spin/orbital frequencies are a separate gauge from the quark's – much higher frequency – spin/orbital frequencies, in today's quantum world.

From the Britannica 2009 DVD "Dirac, P.A.M.: English theoretical physicist who was one of the founders of quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics. Dirac is most famous for his 1928 relativistic quantum theory of the electron and his prediction of the existence of antiparticles. In 1933 he shared the Nobel Prize for Physics with the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger."

We cannot see into the spacetime realm (gauge) of the electron at all; however, we can learn its gauge rules. Quantum theory is built solely on our observances of tiny individual pieces of energy (quanta) that are either created or absorbed when mass-energy balances in the electron's spacetime realm have changed. This is all that realm (gauge) lets us see of it. From this, we know the electron "sees" itself and acts far differently from what we see is happening in our spacetime realm. The electron appears to "see" itself as both a wave type resonance and a sort of spherical spinning particle. Niels Bohr won the Nobel Prize for showing us how this particle-orbit aspect of it caused the various light colors. A bit later, P. A. M. Dirac showed us the spin fine structure of the electron.

Pardon my improper use of "see" for the electron but I believe it paints the best picture. We see both space and time in the electron's realm more highly compressed than our time and space. We see time and space in the quark's realm (another very different – higher frequency – gauge) even more compressed from the electron's. Events in the microcosm happen much, much faster than events in our realm here; just as events in the macrocosm seem to happen slower than they do for us here on earth. These are all gauge theory road signs we can no longer ignore!

From the Britannica 2009 DVD – "Gauge Theory: class of quantum field theory, a mathematical theory involving both quantum mechanics and Einstein's special theory of relativity that is commonly used to describe subatomic particles and their associated wave fields."


Niels
Bohr won the Nobel Prize for seeing electrons as spinning, spherical particles on orbits. I know that some have relegated that idea of Bohr's to the dim and distant past and Bohr's orbits are now being seen by some as a wave function orbital cloud with Bohr's motion missing. This is a mistake! I'll agree that the wave function orbital is there but so is Bohr's motion.

Having said that, I must also add the caveat: You must understand exactly what motion is and the spin/orbit frequency parameters inside of which it must remain; for this, read on.

One of the absolute proofs that Bohr's orbital motion actually exists in the microcosm is that the sigma bond is stronger than the pi bond. How can this exist unless there is real orbital motion there? It has to be that the two spin up, spin down sigma bound electrons keep spinning in the same plane – producing the sigma bond over a far longer length of time – than the polar pi bond that is only a short but repetitious bond whenever those two electrons, having the same spin, happen to pass directly over each other. So Bohr's orbital motion must be there.

We get the right answers by using both this concept of motion, used by Niels Bohr and the concept of Mach's principle, regardless of their diminution among many of my present peers.

From Britannica 2009 DVD "Niels Henrik David Bohr: Danish physicist who was the first to apply the quantum theory, which restricts the energy of a system to certain discrete values, to the problem of atomic and molecular structure. For this work he received the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1922."

The movement away from the way Bohr saw it, may seem correct but if you entirely forget relative motion and the orbiting, spinning particle that Bohr saw then you really lose sight of what's going on in a big way. You must also understand that these things are acting as both particles in motion and resonances depending on which gauge (spacetime realm) the observer is in. You must look at these things both ways. So in science too, you get better depth perception if you use both eyes to see. Bohr got the Nobel Prize for seeing electrons as planetary objects on orbits.

Remember this is a Schrödinger frequency universe and what we see in this frequency universe are only appearances.

We must use motion similar to the way both Bohr and Ampère did. The correct method to view both space and force, this way, was given to us by the relative motion laws of Ampère. http://www.amperefitz.com/lawrm.htm (Click link.)


From Britannica 2009 DVD "Andre M. Ampère: French physicist who founded and named the science of electrodynamics, now known as electromagnetism. Ampère was a prodigy who mastered all mathematics then extant by the time he was 12 years old."

The big argument is about seeing the microcosm as Bohr, Mach and Ampère saw it or as some in modern quantum theory see it. I'm not saying Bohr's entire concepts are right. What I am saying, is that Bohr, by using motion, the way he did, was automatically taking various aspects of phase and the surroundings into consideration. This is fairly easy to see using the laws of Andre M. Ampère. Ampere's Laws

To understand what's really going on, we need Richard P. Feynman's skepticism of official wisdom – because the experts certainly don't have the answer yet – and more of a Feynman quantum-mechanical type explanation of the microcosm, so don't make a wrong turn here! Even globally many of our top people turn out to be wrong, as we've seen in the financial world recently. So in this pursuit of knowledge, the next paragraph gives even quantum theorists an important bit of reasoning:

If you completely discard the concept of motion in the microcosm then you also discard the only common link to both the microcosm and the macrocosm – both of which contain 99.9999% empty space and show evidence of orbit and spin – and thus also discard any hope of a solution to the problem Einstein spent his entire life trying to solve.

A quote from the Britannica 2009 DVD "Light: Since Einstein's work, the speed of light is considered a fundamental constant of nature. Its significance is far broader than its role in describing a property of electromagnetic waves. It serves as the single limiting velocity in the universe, being an upper bound to the propagation speed of signals and to the speeds of all material particles."

Nothing built from electrons can go faster than the speed of light simply because as you try to move just one electron faster and faster up the speed of light asymptote curve, the energy you need to move that single electron at the speed of light is more energy than is available in the entire universe

Do we really know what speed or motion is? If you answer yes then I must ask, "Why is there a speed of light limit to motion ?" If you can't answer that then I have to assume you don't know the full answer as to what motion really is. So we must first fully understand what motion is, in this Schrödinger frequency world, rather than totally ruling out the concept of motion in the microcosm, which many of my peers have done.

Quantum theory is built upon a foundation of units of angular momentum and spin angular momentum that can only be caused by motion. Some quantum theorists have swept Bohr's motion under the rug simply because they couldn't see it in the microcosm.

If the evidence is there, then the thing that causes that evidence is there!

You will see, herein, the reasons why we see motion as being limited to the speed of light and why we cannot see motion in the microcosm.

The reason motion can't be seen in the microcosm is that its frequency is far higher than the frequency parameters limiting your spacetime realm (gauge). If you could possibly exist in the electron's realm – which is impossible – then you would indeed see motion therein somewhat similar to the motion you see now in this lower frequency spacetime realm here.

This may seem like heresy to some but I can assure everyone that future scientists, along with future super-computers, will someday unanimously return to the Ampère concept of relative motion and the Bohr concept of spins and orbits along with giving Mach's principle (surroundings) its true value, which is more than the simple lip service it's getting today.

The Dark Ages science of today, believed now by vast multitudes, that discounts these three important concepts, of Ampère, Bohr and Mach, will most assuredly vanish as completely as the ancient Egyptian religion of Amun, once also believed by vast multitudes, has completely vanished.

Niels Bohr used motion and thereby showed us why we get colors but only for the monoatomic hydrogen and helium atoms; his method failed, in accuracy, for the larger atoms that had altogether different numbers of electrons in the surroundings. So his method is only an approximation but it did definitely point out to us why the colors were there.

Ampère's Laws, that also use motion, are an approximation too – until we get super-computers that can work out the surroundings – but the important thing is that Ampère's concept retains the 'same basic rules' in all the various gauges (spacetime realms) of quantum theory whereas the rules we are now using in these various gauges do not. Ampère's Laws stay the same in all gauges as they do in our realm here. This Ampère-Bohr concept is showing you something brand new, for the first time: Ampère's Laws are giving us – the first pictorial ever of – a unification of gauges (spacetime realms).

From the Britannica 2009 DVD "binding energy: The total mass of the bound particles is less than the sum of the masses of the separate particles by an amount equivalent (as expressed in Einstein's mass-energy equation) [E=mc2] to the binding energy."

As the Britannica states, scientists know that binding energy equates to mass lost or E=mc2. You will see herein that if this is fully integrated with what Milo Wolff has proven then you get far more answers than this Dark Ages science view now gives you by itself.

And this is what I hope to present to you here.

Ampère gave us a far better overall concept than the field. You will clearly see this too as we proceed. He gave us a 'continuous rule structure' that works, the same way, in every different spin/orbit frequency gauge but it was overlooked and dismissed. Now we can see it should never have been because this Ampère-Bohr concept is the approximation that Dirac predicted we would someday use to make this universe understandable. Ampère's Laws should always be used as the 'overall set of rules' that work, the same way, in every limited bandwidth field in this – perhaps infinite – frequency universe of Schrödinger's.

In the early 1800s, Ampère first explained electromagnetism using the concept of
relative motion; later Faraday and Maxwell explained it using the field concept. Even before I received my First Class Radio Telephone License, I saw Ampère's relative motion concept gave me a far better and simpler picture, of what was really going on, than Faraday's field did.

From the Britannica 2009 DVD "Maxwell, James Clerk: The concept of electromagnetic radiation originated with Maxwell, and his field equations, based on Michael Faraday's observations of the electric and magnetic lines of force, paved the way for Einstein's special theory of relativity, which established the equivalence of mass and energy."

In this Universe of Schrödinger's we see that any field will have bandwidth characteristics: it will have frequency parameters, which cannot be exceeded. You can not accurately portray a field unless the frequency parameters are specified. Note: #11 in http://www.Ampèrefitz.com/FitzUSR.htm. #11.The more accuracy you want, the more you must narrow the range of frequencies involved. Also, the greater the frequency range you view, the less accuracy you will have (with present math). (Feynman taught us this one.) Quantum scientists know this one as the rule: "Before you quantize you must fix the gauge." ([fix the gauge] Specify the gauge frequency bandwidth.) http://www.Ampèrefitz.com/quantize.htm

Believe it or not but we are already, by using the standard model, actually fixing one spin/orbit frequency gauge for the quark; and fixing another entirely different lower spin/orbit frequency gauge for the electron and fixing an even lower different spin/orbit frequency gauge – our NATURAL LAWS – for us here on earth. This clarifies what Einstein said because these are clearly not continuous structures! They are separate spin/orbit frequency gauge structures where, inside of each, the spacetime interval remains the same. However, the spacetime interval of one is not the same as the spacetime interval of a higher or lower frequency gauge. These different gauges all have different spacetime intervals! This is why we cannot see motion in the microcosm. These different gauge areas are linked together only by certain weaker harmonic frequencies: A good example of this harmonic linking is with gravity and light. This is why gravity bends light.

Einstein was right in 1954: these gauge areas (fields or spacetime realms) are not continuous structures. They all have entirely different spacetime intervals! That's why they are seen as different gauges in the standard model.

We have, as part of the standard model, Quantum ElectroDynamics:

QED uses what is called the square of the amplitude. This correctly determines the spin up - spin down electron pairs that are in the correct position and lined up exactly right, having the correct impedance (the sectional binding mass of both electrons must match) to transfer energy. Time is considered and so is space and also must be the fact that a very minute portion of the closest sides of both the emitting and receiving electrons involved, in a quantum energy transfer, will sense that they are – not only the same mass but – both tangent to parallel lines and moving in the same direction at the same speed. What the square of the amplitude tells us is that phase is critical. You'll see more about this and minimum phase a bit later.

When you have plenty of time, you can better understand this
square of the amplitude quantum of energy transfer, if you listen to the Feynman lectures. http://www.vega.org.uk/series/lectures/feynman/index.php

From
Britannica 2009 DVD "Richard Phillips Feynman: American theoretical physicist who was widely regarded as the most brilliant, influential, and iconoclastic figure in his field in the post-World War II era."

It's also extremely important that you again read this very short part of Nobel prize winner Richard P. Feynman's QED: http://www.rbduncan.com/feynm1.htm Notice how momentous this concept of motion is for unification! This makes a great deal of sense when you look at what Ampère found over a hundred years earlier.

Not only does Niels Bohr's concept show us why we have colors but the Ampère-Bohr concept together shows us more about what sigma and pi chemical bonding are specifically: If we look at the electron the way Niels Bohr did then there is no mistaking the fact that a sigma bond is an equatorial bond that is always between a spin up and a spin down electron, which are spinning in the same equatorial plane. Keep this fact about a sigma bond – binding energy – firmly in your mind. The "Cooper pairs" in superconductors are also a spin up and a spin down electron that are paired.

From the Britannica 2009 DVD "Sigma Bond: in chemistry, a mechanism by which two atoms are held together as the result of the forces operating between them and a pair of electrons regarded as shared by them."

You will discover herein that of utmost relevance is the fact that sigma bonds are extremely important not only in equating binding energy to mass lost (E=mc2) but also in the photon energy transfers themselves!

 

The following is probably the first accurate presentation anywhere of what a photon really is:

A photon of energy is derived from the release of binding energy between a spin up-spin down electron pair. Only a spin up and spin down electron, spinning in the same spin plane, having both orbitals of the same size and configuration -- on different atoms -- can create a sigma bond between them. A quantum chunk of energy is released as this sigma bond is severed, resulting in reduced orbital size of the electron emitting the energy and causing the emission of light energy from the opposite spin electron that now receives the quantum chunk of energy released from the severed sigma bond (E=mc2).

 
The people who have read my words on
http://www.rbduncan.com/ and http://www.Ampèrefitz.com know that you cannot even begin to understand this universe until you know exactly what space and time are. Our minds seem to be equating the main scalar frequency of the electron as a clock that mainly determines what we call time. We sense the spin frequency mainly determining force and space. (We see the spin of the electron causing the magnetic force.) Also, by reading, what you see in the above links, you will see what force the spin of the quark causes to even distant quarks. Also read: 1/18/2006 The Vector Scalar relationship between force, space and time.

By reading what is in the above links you will also know what we see is an average time and an average space. Both time and space are really made up of numerous quanta bits, the same as energy. This concept of an average time and space, made up of numerous quanta bits of time and space – a great many billions of separate, different out of phase relationships between every single thing in this universe – is extremely important to the correct understanding of both time and space. I'll explain this further as we proceed.

Each electron repels its nearest neighbor by a certain amount of force, the same as each star repels its nearest neighbor by a certain amount of force. Let's call these quanta too because they come in chunks like energy quanta. It is these individual repulsive force chunks (quanta) added up and averaged that give us our illusion of space. And it's the same with time as well.

View these electrons as Niels Bohr did, as spinning spheres, even though we know they are a complicated
Schrödinger type resonance.

Think of entire electrons as never being involved in spacetime light transfers. In fact, only very minute portions of the closest sides of the emitting and receiving electrons – one is spin up and the other spin down – are involved. And if these closest sides "see" themselves as close in impedance (both of the same size mass) and moving at the same direction at the same frequency then they will also "see" themselves inside the same Minkowski light cone. Thus, they will be able to transfer this spacetime quantum of light energy from one electron to the other.

From the Britannica 2009 DVD "Minkowski, Herman: His idea of combining the three dimensions of physical space with that of time into a four-dimensional "Minkowski space" – spacetime – laid the mathematical foundations for Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity."

Sigma chemical bonding is a proven fact. It must always be seen as a spacetime binding force between a spin up and a spin down electron whose very minute portions of their closest sides are going in the same direction and are of the same mass (impedanced matched). Light energy is also exchanged, exactly the same way, as a spacetime binding force: It's nothing more than a long distance sigma bond that ends up transferring a quantum of light energy. This spacetime transfer is between a spin up and a spin down electron where very minute portions of their closest sides are always impedanced matched and going in the same direction.

One additional thing is very important and this is that energy only diminishes with the square of the distance when multiple numbers of electrons are involved. Why? Because it is the number – of these pairs – involved, in the transfer, that fall off with the square of the distance. Between only two electrons, this quantum of sigma binding energy – a sigma bond – remains at the same strength out to the Hubble limit of distance. Now you see why a quantum of light energy does not diminish in intensity with distance: This is another well-established quantum theory principle. In fact, this is the keystone of quantum mechanics.

Now, here's what Niels Bohr taught us:

From the Britannica 2009 DVD "Spectral lines are produced by transitions of electrons within atoms or ions. As the electrons move closer to or farther from the nucleus of an atom (or of an ion), energy in the form of light (or other radiation) is emitted or absorbed."

For instance:

If a quantum of violet light is given up by a star to your eye then on that star, in a certain time period, an electron that was originally far from its nucleus, dropped to one of the closest orbitals of its nucleus. While in that same time period (standard model explanation) an electron in your eye absorbed a quantum of violet light.

As the electron on the star dropped and emitted energy, the electron in your eye absorbed that same
quantum of light emitted from the star. This is the way it is being explained in the standard model.

If a quantum of red light is given up by a star to your eye then on that star, in that same time period, an electron dropped about half the distance to its nucleus. While in that same time period an electron in your eye absorbed a quantum of red light.

Again, as the star's electron went down to a lower orbit level, your eye electron went up to a higher orbit and absorbed a quantum of light energy. (The standard model view.)

Thus appears, in quantum theory, the concept of a boson with the photon acting as a boson quantum exchange particle. A quantum of energy on that star was simply shifted or exchanged with your eye via a photon (boson).

From the Britannica 2009 DVD "quantum: the magnitude of all the quanta emitted or absorbed is the same in both energy and momentum. These particle-like packets of light are called photons, a term also applicable to quanta of other forms of electromagnetic energy such as X rays and gamma rays."

Photons are classed as boson quantum exchange particles. Remember, in these quantum exchanges, the same magnitude of energy emitted is also absorbed.

From the Britannica 2009 DVD "quantum mechanics: The probability of a transition between one atomic stationary state and some other state can be calculated with the aid of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. For example, an atom may change spontaneously from one state to another state with less energy, emitting the difference in energy as a photon with a frequency given by the Bohr relation."

Let's look at how a photon supposedly works in the standard model:

If batter blue hits the ball twice as much as batter red in the same time period then batter blue will expend twice the energy as batter red.

It's the same with light: as violet light being twice the frequency of red light has twice the energy in each quantum of light.

But the time period with all of these quantum exchanges seems to be associated with Planck's constant (h). So if the batter hits the ball twice as much, this gives twice the energy. Since there are twice the swings back and forth with violet light as there are with red, in that same time period, then a quantum of violet light comes out with twice the energy of a quantum of red light.

However, all of this is well known to quantum theory physicists.

Now we come to something not as well known to all:

You must realize that the sigma type close bondings – of your electrons here – also occur with distant electrons as far off as the Hubble limit; not only that but these far distant bondings are at the same strength as close bondings. They must be the same strength because the quantum of light emitted from the star was the same strength as your eye received; this is an agreed upon, quantum theory fact.

The quantum of light from the star to your eye, called a photon (boson) in the standard model, is being caused by this spin binding shift. However, this particular binding shift is between the two distant electrons that are free to go down/&/up their orbits and vibrate as they do so, respectively causing/&/receiving these light or heat or radio waves. Thus these bubble chamber tracks are caused by real binding shifts of a spin up with a distant spin down electron.

This universe is forever trying to balance via in phase spin attractions: where this happens the standard model gives us a boson, which we now see are really these binding shifts between distant electrons.

Since this standard model photon has no mass then it has to be considered nothing more than a simple binding shift or binding exchange between that star and your eye? A simple binding shift would better account for the recoil effect noted in Feynman diagrams. And a binding shift causing other binding shifts, or emanating from other binding shifts, would better account for the various bubble chamber tracks.

Even the magnetic type spin attraction has a sort of Bose-Einstein condensate element to it because space has disappeared (condensed) between the in phase portions of the two magnetically bound electrons.

A Quote from the Britannica 2009 DVD tells us, "Bosons include mesons (e.g., pions and kaons), nuclei of even mass number (e.g., helium-4), and the particles required to embody the fields of quantum field theory (e.g., photons and gluons). Bosons differ significantly from a group of subatomic particles known as fermions in that there is no limit to the number that can occupy the same quantum state."

Also from the Britannica 2009 DVD "quantum mechanics: The symmetry of the wave function for identical particles is closely related to the spin of the particles. In quantum field theory (see Quantum electrodynamics), it can be shown that particles with half-integral spin (1/2, 3/2, etc.) have antisymmetric wave functions. They are called fermions after the Italian-born physicist Enrico Fermi. Examples of fermions are electrons, protons, and neutrons, all of which have spin 1/2. Particles with zero or integral spin (e.g., mesons, photons) have symmetric wave functions and are called bosons after the Indian mathematician and physicist Satyendra Nath Bose, who first applied the ideas of symmetry to photons in 1924-25."

So how do all these bosons really differ from fermions?

Bosons are more symmetric (more in phase): they have maximized their (close range) binding energy. Fermions haven't!

In a Boson, spins and orbits will be structured to minimize binding with the surroundings (mass creation) and instead maximize binding to internal close units instead. Bosons will be the maximum in phase with internal close entities and the minimum in phase with distant surroundings. This is the important Ampère phase picture that must be added to the standard model.

Simply – using the Ampère Bohr concept – view the very minute portions of the closest sides of any two spin, sigma bound entities as obeying Bose-Einstein statistics because portions of their spins are now in phase.

Or view the two entire sigma bound – now in phase – entities as a single entity with their binding having boson characteristics.

You increase, immensely, the value of the standard model by doing this!

You also greatly simplify things once you use the Ampère-Bohr concept and see that quarks can attract via their spin the same as electrons do in magnetism/charge. This binding force – of electrons and quarks – depends on the frequency of the spin. And these frequencies change with mass as we know light, heat and radio frequencies change with mass increase or decrease.

Once this is seen then not only can a magnetic type spin binding be visualized as a boson type Ampère in phase attraction but why we see this concentration of the strong force in an area the size of the proton or neutron is explained as well with Ampère's Laws, however, that will be more toward the end of this paper. So keep reading.

Here is a quote from the Britannica 1997 CD telling about Einstein's tensor math which "led him to an essentially unique tensor equation for the law of gravitation, in which gravitation emerged not as a force but as a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime."

If I may be so bold as to tell you the answer to what space and time really are, then here it is:

As you see in the above Britannica quote, there is no such thing as force in the tensor math of General Relativity. What you actually get – greatly simplifying things – is more spacetime, than average, where repulsive force exists between two objects. In addition, there is less spacetime, than average, existing between two gravitational objects that have an attractive force between them.

Saul Perlmutter has shown, as in GR, that if repulsive force is more spacetime than average then we get Einstein's cosmological constant (exact opposite repulsive force of gravity) and gravity becomes a bi-polar force like all the other invisible forces.

This bi-polar aspect also exists in all the fundamental forces
fundamental invisible forces giving us our mistaken notion of having North or South poles for magnetism and + or – for charge. Mistaken notion? Yes!


*** important ***

Quoting the Britannica 2009 DVD "Phase: when comparing the phases of two or more periodic motions, such as waves, the motions are said to be in phase when corresponding points reach maximum or minimum displacements simultaneously. If the crests of two waves pass the same point or line at the same time, then they are in phase for that position; however, if the crest of one and the trough of the other pass at the same time, the phase angles differ by 180°, or π radians, and the waves are said to be out of phase (by 180° in this case)."

***
With AC (alternating current), phase is extremely important whatever the frequency. And the rules for phase do not change with either higher or lower frequencies. Ampère's Laws are essentially phase rules that also do not change with the various higher or lower gauge frequencies.

Thus Ampère's Laws finally have given us a gauge theory in which all the forces have a common origin and in which we have gauge invariance and which will, in the future, be related by better mathematical symmetries when better computers are available to satisfactorily work out the necessary frequency surroundings. To improve the standard model immensely, simply re-insert the original Bohr spin-orbit motion, which clearly shows you the important phase relationship that causes all the forces. Thus all the forces stem from the same source. And this is unification!

In addition, folks, this includes unifying the gravitational force gauge (spacetime realm) with the rest as well. To see this, merely keep reading!
***

In this Wolff-Schrödinger frequency universe, all forces are nothing but phase relationships:

Here's the real reason for magnetism and also sigma and pi chemical bonding (charge): Two electrons, with the same spin on the same spin axis, polar attraction, magnetically/chemically attract when both entire spins are in phase and, in magnetism, this polar attraction is strong because both entire electrons are spinning in phase with each other. Their entire spin frequencies are in phase. The equatorial side to side magnetic attraction of a spin up with a spin down electron is a weaker attraction – the same as the side to side attraction of two reversed pole magnets is a weaker attraction – because only the closest sides, of the electrons causing this magnetic phenomenon, are in phase.

Chemical bonding (charge) is no different. However in chemical bonding, these magnetic binding strengths are reversed with sigma and pi bondings: Even though pi bonding – same spin, same spin axis, polar attraction – should be the more powerful bond, it is not because it is a repetitious but only very short periodic, polar positioning – many times involving a spin shift – while a sigma bond – spin up with a spin down electron – is a steady equatorial bond over a much longer constant time period; thus it becomes the stronger bond of the two. Of course, this is viewing things as Ampère and Nobel Laureate Niels Bohr saw them. This Ampère-Bohr concept shows you all the fundamental invisible forces are caused this same way by phase relationships!

You won't see this correct view, of phase, at all, looking from the accepted Dark Ages present science view. But using this motion seen by Bohr gives you a better, enhanced view of the important bosons – photons and gluons – and then you see the correct aspect of phase in this frequency world.

You cannot use both field and relative motion (phase) concepts at the same time but to understand how this universe works, you most certainly must know how to use both concepts. Again, use both eyes to see.

Remember, the phase situation is what is causing the forces so you cannot use relative motion (this new phase concept) along with charge or gravity or any of the other fields. Use either concept by itself but not both concepts at the same time!

In other words, when you are using relative motion (this new phase concept) then simply forget about plus and minus charge or gravity or any field, for that matter.

See: Our Universe is a Quantum Computer!
***

Remember, two electrons together with reversed spins, in the same equatorial plane (sigma bond) make the strongest chemical bond (charge) while, in magnetic materials – it's the very opposite – the same spin on the same spin axis, polar attraction in magnetism produces the strongest magnetic bond.

By purposely not viewing things as Niels Bohr, Mach and Ampère saw them, our modern quantum physicist experts may have made a major mistake – maybe even worse than the modern financial experts – and never noticed the reversal of strengths with magnetism and chemical bonding (charge) and thus could not see that magnetism was being caused by the same method as charge.

I've worked in electronics all my life and know that phase is one of the most important elements when working with frequencies. What's difficult for me to believe, is that some of my quantum theorist peers – by mistakenly rejecting the concepts of Nobel prize winner Niels Bohr – have thereby eliminated the most important microcosm phase indicator from the standard model.

Yes, this is hard to believe – but this is what is happening!

So summarizing – with all types of force – we have the following:

Average out of phase, of all the various entities, is what we sense as space and time.

More out of phase than average is a repulsive force.

More in phase than average is an attractive force.

As we learned previously from the Britannica, binding energy is always equal to the mass lost via E=mc2.

Therefore solid state pioneer Carter Mead must be right and we surely must be still in the Dark Ages of science and all these universities must be asleep at the switch if none of these universities have ever published why mass is lost via E=mc2.

*** important ***
Therefore, it's obvious
why we have the mass loss via E=mc2 and you also perfectly understand Mach's principle (surroundings) as well:

Each electron that changes far off binding (with distant surroundings) to close binding, changes a quantum of inertial mass to energy in the amount of hv or Planck's constant (h) times radiation frequency.

This is it in a nutshell! It's all nothing but tiny quantum sized binding changes that do not change binding strength with distance. Electrons can shift sigma bindings from distant to close electrons or vice versa. Quarks can also shift a form of sigma binding to other quarks as well. A shift of orbit gives the larger energy quantum of hv.The much smaller quantum of energy given off via a spin reversal is frequency (v) times the angular momentum h-bar (h/), is seen in the very much weaker, spin, fine structure microcosm spectra.

Simple light, heat and radio radiation, directly from the star to your eye can only be a sigma bonding shift. This is explained perfectly by Ampère's Laws but not by any other laws.

The reason that you have spin alignment (magnetism) with iron, nickel and cobalt, which are at the peak of the energy curve, is that there is more spin binding with the surroundings – more far off binding – with those elements that lie on the peak of the energy curve. The more far off binding you have then the more likely you will have spin alignment (magnetism). A preponderance of close binding actually has a tendency to prevent spin alignment (magnetism).

The specific timing of both h – angular momentum derived from orbital change – and h-bar – fine structure, spin reversal, angular momentum change – emanates probably from predominant cycles in the quark realm. This must be the reason for SU(2) Symmetry and not that the spin of the electron is different from the spin of a top, which is the prevalent belief today. Wheeler and Feynman essentially showed us we cannot see motion in another gauge (frequency spacetime realm). You can only see motion in your own spacetime realm. You only can see the effects of motion in other spacetime realms.

The truth of this leaves the symmetries of the standard model fully intact. But we do have to visualize the boson, particle concept a bit differently to see with both eyes and get better depth perception.
***

From Britannica 2009 DVD "Mass: in physics, quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force."

Mass is the measure of inertia. The reason we have inertial mass, is because of these far distant – same strength – bindings with similar frequency entities in the surroundings. For gravity these quark to quark bindings are simply to objects closer than the quark to distant quark bindings in the surroundings that cause inertial mass.

Therefore it becomes crystal clear that these binding changes from far to close, where energy is gained, are the real reason for E
=mc2.

The majority of my science peers – even though they know we have such a thing as centrifugal force – are totally blind to this aspect of binding with the far distant surroundings (Mach's principle). This blindness remains in spite of the fact Berkeley discovered this in the 1700s. I heartily thank Dr. Milo Wolff for finally mathematically proving this beyond a shadow of a doubt. For instance, an electron in your eye first gains inertial mass by binding with an electron on a distant star. Then it turns this inertial mass into energy by binding with another closer electron in your eye; thus giving your eye a quantum of light energy via a photon/binding shift.

This is very much like your car's spark plug where the coil is first connected to the battery but the spark is created when the battery disconnects from the coil the same as your brain gets the quantum of light energy from your eye when that electron in your eye disconnects from the star, dropping down to a lower orbit and emitting that quantum of energy to your brain.

In a prism the lowest light frequencies (red) are bent the least. The highest light frequencies (violet and ultra violet) are bent the most. It's the same with standing waves with the highest frequency spherical, scalar, standing waves being seen by us as smaller and lower frequency, spherical entities being seen by us as larger.

As you read on you will also see a necessary quantum effect with both space and time.

You see stars as being far away and their light as coming from the past. This is true and it is because the vast majority of the star's electrons are out of phase with your electrons. But that does not mean all of these
very minute portions of the closest sides of those electrons are going to be out of phase with all the very minute portions of the closest sides of your electrons.

Quantum theory is trying to teach us all about this peculiar spacetime setup, we are in, but we are slow learners.

It is of little importance if an electron on the distant star is in the past and the electron in your eye is in the present. What really matters is that they have
opposite spins and that a very minute portion of the closest sides of the electron in your eye and the one on the star both "see" each other in the correct alignment and impedance (similar size orbit). They also "see" their frequencies in the same phase sync so as to be on the same Minkowski light cone.

Only then can light energy be transmitted. See:
Ampere's Laws or Aufbau laws and if you have time http://www.rbduncan.com/theALaws.htm.

Observing it this way, as an
in phase wormhole through various bits of average out of phase space quanta chunks, you eliminate the necessity for aether, "action at a distance", time reversal and a lot of other nonsense.

Light goes through a vacuum!

There is absolutely nothing in a vacuum to transfer this light.

Understanding this shows you there is no such thing as aether nor is there any such thing even needed to transfer light.

However, you have to know exactly what space and time are to properly see this; thus knowing, that space is really the composition of space quanta bits, is extremely important! As Einstein said, "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

From the Britannica 2009 DVD "Einstein, Albert: In the 19th century there were two pillars of physics: Newton's laws of motion and Maxwell's theory of light. Einstein was alone in realizing that they were in contradiction and that one of them must fall."

Einstein was correct: Space and time are an illusion. They are not what we think they are and you must understand exactly what gives us this space and time illusion before you can figure out this universe.

We are composed of electrons that are all resonating at a certain frequency. Believe it or not but we are nothing more than a good superheterodyne radio receiver that can not tune into the quark's frequency band (
gauge) nor the lower electron's frequency (gauge) but does tune into an even lower frequency – electron orbiting – band giving us our space and time for that one particular frequency band (gauge) and we think we see all this space and time that our ancestors have written all about for thousands of years. However, since the Michaelson-Morley experiment, there have been insurmountable problems Here are a few problems with that old idea of space and time unless we see this is, in fact, a Schrödinger Universe and space and time are both an illusion caused, respectively, via phase differences in these spin and main scalar frequencies.

From the Britannica 2009 DVD "Spacetime: in physical science, single concept that recognizes the union of space and time, posited by Albert Einstein in the theories of relativity (1905, 1916)."

But these spin and main scalar frequencies are intertwined in a union and cannot really be separated because they are the same as space and time which, as the Britannica states, are in union together and can not be separated even though we can, via this illusion, separate the two in our minds.

However the union, there are phase differences between these spin and main scalar frequencies.

Somehow our minds can differentiate these phase differences thus, via this illusion, separating the two, in our minds, into space and time.

The more out of phase the principle scalar frequencies of two electrons are, then the more time that we will see existing between them.

Yes, the
average time between an electron on that star and one in your eye, we see as very much out of phase – separated by much time – but not a very minute portion of the closest sides of the two, opposite spinning, light transferring electrons. These closest sides are exactly in phase with each other and "see" themselves existing at the same time and on the same Minkowski light cone.

What our minds sense as time and space are nothing more than both phase relationships in this scalar frequency and spin frequency universe of Schrödinger.

The closer the main scalar frequencies are, in phase, then the closer we see the items are to each other in time.

The same with spin frequencies: if no phase difference exists, between very minute portions of the spin frequencies of similar entities, then our minds see them in the same space.

They can now be considered in the same space because now with similar portions of their spins in phase, those very minute portions now obey Bose-Einstein statistics.

As we deal with
scalar resonances, they will give us a more exact concept of what space and time actually are. You can see why we must have the laws of relativity and why space and time must change with speed and/or mass.

Space and time are things that are constantly being produced by out of phase resonances. This is simply the way things are set up in this universe and this
average space and time set up between everything remains basically the same. Nevertheless, a minor portion of it can be different from the average or you wouldn't have gravity or any other type force. So small portions of it can be different from the average and are different from the average: thus giving you the various forces. Only the mean or average setup remains the same. The tensor math of general relativity is virtual proof it works like this.

You can't remove the
average space and time between everything; however, a tiny bit (quantum) of space and time can be removed via a minimum phase binding (bonding) shift. Moreover, a tiny bit is removed, from a very minute portion of the closest sides of two electrons with opposite spins in the same equatorial spin plane. That's exactly why we have sigma bonding along with heat and light and the radio wave spectrum.

This is how sigma bonding is produced and how light and heat are transferred. You must think of each quantum of energy like Einstein's photon: it's a
direct transfer or a minimum phase binding shift between two electrons, whose very minute portions "see" themselves both in the same place at the same time. It's as simple as that. And these very minute portions are doing this because now they are both in phase and obeying Bose-Einstein statistics.

While two electrons with reversed spins can be on the same orbital, the very minute portions of those same two electrons can go one step further in the Bose-Einstein concept and actually be seen – in this Schrödinger Universe – as being in the same space at the same time.

Space itself is being caused via the average of all these spins that are not spinning on parallel paths and are thus spinning out of phase with their neighbors. (This is also Ampère's law.)

Now, as you ponder all this, you can see that phase is the real reason behind the Pauli exclusion principle and Bose-Einstein statistics.

We can no longer think of light, traveling from place to place, in a waveform. It does not travel, in a transverse manner, like water waves on top of water nor, in a longitudinal way, as sound waves through air nor even like high or low frequency electrical waves through wires. We know it is a quantum transfer. Scientists of the future, who will learn more about space and time than today's scientists know, will see each quantum transfer of light between electrons not as a wave but more like Einstein's photon, or as a
direct transfer or binding shift that sets up a vibration at the light frequency.

These scalar, standing wave entities are actual waveforms. And light is a waveform while in your eye but please do not think of it as a wave while each quantum of light is being transferred through a vacuum. You must not see each quantum of light as a wave! You must also see it more akin to Einstein's photon. See it as a direct transfer or minimum phase binding shift through the vacuum because it acts first as a sigma bond, which is a binding force. This long distance sigma bond between the two opposite spinning electrons is the vital element that effects the quantum energy transfer. In the future, it will be seen as a Schrödinger resonance reaction. So I guess Viv Pope is right, after all, about preaching this fact to us and that the speed of light (c) should be looked upon as something else besides a speed.

As this energy transfer of light, from a distant star in the past, comes to your eye, in the present, then something else important happens as well in this Universe of Schrödinger's. There is then a balance reaction in the total average phase shift of the electrons in that past to the total average phase of the scalar frequency, of all the electrons, in your present time.

Using sunlight, we are pulling enormous energy out of the past, although it's only about 8 minutes in the past; however, the universe balances this out as well with a simple
average phase change.

It does get a bit more complicated because we have two major clocks: the electron's main scalar frequency and the quark's.

In addition, we also have those two spin frequencies giving us force and space.

The quark's frequencies are much higher than the electron's. This gives it an entirely different frequency band or spacetime realm (gauge) from the electron's. Our spacetime realm – where h or Planck's constant is our high frequency limit – is a lower harmonic frequency than both the quark and electron. To see the big picture you absolutely must understand the quantum concept of gauges or spacetime realms. Once you do see this Universe of Schrödinger's, then you can see the big picture and thus see how it all works.

Now let's return to these
minimum phase spin binding frequencies that will change with mass and we see the mass of the three quarks inside a proton or neutron is so great that it changes the spin frequency of these quarks so much that three close spinning quarks must attract one another differently, via spin-orbit resonance (charge), than when they are further from each other and separated by the radius of a proton or neutron where their combined mass is less and their spins are again at different frequencies to one another.

As quarks orbit they also precess and it is this precession that changes and gives more or less attraction to the other, either close or far distant, quarks. Quarks, like electrons must impedance match (having binding portions of similar mass) to bind: They can only sigma bind – similar to sigma bonding of the electrons – with other quarks that have the same translational mass. As a bicycle wheel spins faster this translational mass greatly increases, with the far distant surroundings, giving greater centrifugal force with greater speed thus pulling quarks further from the center of the nucleus. This is also why you stay up better on your bicycle the faster the wheels spin. What is holding you up on your bicycle is an unseen far distant part of the quark strong force! This is why quarks are constantly moving toward and away from the center of the nucleus. Thus we get the appearance of asymptotic freedom.

From Britannica 2009 DVD "When the quarks are close together, they exchange fewer gluons, and the force is weaker. Only at infinitely close distances are quarks free, an effect known as asymptotic freedom. For their discovery of this effect, Gross, Wilczek, and Politzer were awarded the 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics."

The three different quark spin frequencies, in protons and neutrons must all be higher fundamental harmonics of the electron's spin frequency. These frequencies must be closer to distant quark frequencies when these quarks are separated furthest from the center of the nucleus (getting more pull from distant quarks).

So not only do quarks bind with electrons via this harmonic binding – reason gravity bends light and why electrons are attracted to the nucleus – but quarks also spin bind with other distant quarks in the universe to cause gravity, inertia and centrifugal force.

Since we have nothing to sense this, it looks as if the strong force is totally contained inside the nucleus but these are simple sigma bonds of spinning quarks that behave exactly like sigma bonds of spinning electrons obeying
Ampère's Laws.

Some portion of the color strong force (a sigma bond) derived from the quark spin is being picked up outside the nucleus by electrons. If it wasn't then how would we know quarks have 2/3 and 1/3 charge?

So the strong force is not totally contained within the neutron or proton; this proves strong force leakage. It's this same quark color force that will destroy a flywheel if it is spun fast enough because when you spin something then this imparts a translational motion to the quarks so that now sections of their orbits – that are moving faster, like the wind in the bad quarter of a severe hurricane, and moving higher up on the speed of light asymptotic curve – must impedance match with quarks on the distant stars that have this greater mass as well. If you spin the flywheel fast enough then it is this color strong force of the quarks that finally destroys the flywheel by pulling it apart. It is the color strong force of the quarks, to distant quarks, that causes centrifugal force as well as gravity and inertia.

So when you come right down to it, it's phase. And to see phase best, go the Niels Bohr motion route.

 See: 3/18/2005 "Why the Strong Force acts the way it does."

So Niels Bohr was right on the mark after all! Orbitals should be seen as orbits too. Look at it with both eyes!

Therefore, the strong force is not entirely contained inside the proton and neutron after all! It behaves exactly like all the other forces! You can't see this using our Dark Ages present science. But you certainly can see it using Ampère's Laws along with the Bohr concept.

I wish I would have published – before Stephen Wolfram did – the fact that you can use math to explain simple things – such as I've done herein with hv – but you need a model to explain complicated things. This Ampère-Bohr model, that I've been harping on since 1966, explains the entire universe better than anything presently available. As Einstein said, it's all an illusion. I agree; even motion is an illusion; even my Ampère-Bohr model is an illusion in this all frequency-resonance universe. But it's the best model we have, so use it until we emerge from these Dark Ages of science, as Carter Mead calls them, with an accurate frequency model of Ampère's Laws and the super-computers needed to work out the surroundings.
See:
7/5/2005 Euclidean geometric motion

and if you have more time read 5/22/2005 A NEW Science Tool

 

What is so incredible about this was that in 1966, while trouble shooting in the avionics section of Pan American Airlines, I discovered the first important relative motion part of this and published it in 1966-1967 Fitzpatrick's First Book. There was a full page – page 29 – devoted only to my book in the Sunday Book Review Section of the New York Times, on June 18, 1967. Thousands of those books were in most of the universities of America not long after that too. I now know it's phase differences that make us see the relative motion aspect of it that I first noticed way back then in 1966. I hereby thank all the scientists in all the universities for not latching on to this relative motion concept way back then and allowing me the 40 plus years that I needed to invalidate all the arguments against relative motion – including the one Robert Dicke gave – and to work out this phase system that the universe uses.


The absolute proof of all this will come as soon as it is discovered that all binary stars of the same mass have opposite spins. See: 9/6/2005 Binary stars act exactly like electrons

I left this present Affenstall (Ape cage) Science Religion – that most still believe in – in 1966: the year I published the method that showed how to use Ampere's Law along with relative motion to unify gravity with the other forces. Back then we didn't know about quarks yet but I intuitively knew it had to be done using Ampere's Laws along with relative motion.

If I've done nothing else in life then at least I've made the attempt to get this message across to those religious fanatics who still firmly hold to their ancient Affenstall Science Religion.

This universe uses principles that scientists believing in present science still do not comprehend but if you have read this then you do begin to comprehend how this universe functions.

One day – in the future – real scientists will draw the line between the apes and real scientists: The years before that line will designate the apes and the years after that line will be when most people finally understood what was really going on. I'm afraid that this present date will fall into the ape category side of the line.

Thank you,

Have a good day & visit my site at goodreads:

http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/276352

 

Click ANY of these links to get what you want

 

Read my book FREE:

http://www.amperefitz.com/ua_20071020_ck_ds_jm_ds.pdf (This is the book in Adobe)

or

http://www.amperefitz.com/unvasleep.htm (This book link opens faster if you have dial up.)

 

There was a full page in the New York Times devoted exclusively about Fitzpatrick's First Book on June 18th 1967.

"Fitzpatrick's First Book" also in Adobe.pdf - pge1.pdf

Click above links to read that first book of mine free.

I've found out and published a lot more since then: Over 4 Decades of Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers & Thoughts http://www.amperefitz.com/4.decades.htm

And here's this page duplicated in Adobe.pdf: http://www.amperefitz.com/4.decades.pdf

 

 Thank you, World Scientist Database - - Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

& super popular now

http://www.amperefitz.com/principle-of-equivalence.htm

http://www.amperefitz.com/acceleratingexpandinguniverse.htm

http://www.amperefitz.com/aphaseuniverse.htm

 

Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.

This is my Christmas present to the scientific community this December 25, 2011

Send the link to this http://www.amperefitz.com/affenstall.htm to someone you think needs to read it.

Here's the Adobe pdf link: http://www.amperefitz.com/affenstall.pdf