Testing for Tolerance

[Aetherwizard]

Are papers allowable as starting points for discussion on this forum?

I experience tremendous bias in science forums favoring peer-reviewed concepts and a lack of open-mindedness toward fresh ideas. I recently wrote a paper and published it on ResearchGate to explain my mathematically supported physics insights. As part of my research, I even developed a new system of units based on the concept of distributed charge and the concept that there are two quantifiable types of charges: electrostatic and magnetic. Through these enhanced physics tools, I have demonstrated how the Relativity equations are easily expressed as fluid Aether equations. 

More importantly, my work demonstrates that the so-called "anomalous" quantum Hall effect is better explained in terms of magnetic charge than electrostatic charge, which validates my theory. My theory similarly explains numerous other physics observations better than the Standard Model.

The problem I encounter is the instant hostility that arises from such a claim, rather than a measured scientific approach that would begin by reading the paper and checking out the simple equations. Is it safe to post the paper and expect a proper scientific critique rather than an unresearched, knee-jerk reaction?

[exchemist]

4 minutes ago, Aetherwizard said:

Are papers allowable as starting points for discussion on this forum?

I experience tremendous bias in science forums favoring peer-reviewed concepts and a lack of open-mindedness toward fresh ideas. I recently wrote a paper and published it on ResearchGate to explain my mathematically supported physics insights. As part of my research, I even developed a new system of units based on the concept of distributed charge and the concept that there are two quantifiable types of charges: electrostatic and magnetic. Through these enhanced physics tools, I have demonstrated how the Relativity equations are easily expressed as fluid Aether equations. 

More importantly, my work demonstrates that the so-called "anomalous" quantum Hall effect is better explained in terms of magnetic charge than electrostatic charge, which validates my theory. My theory similarly explains numerous other physics observations better than the Standard Model.

The problem I encounter is the instant hostility that arises from such a claim, rather than a measured scientific approach that would begin by reading the paper and checking out the simple equations. Is it safe to post the paper and expect a proper scientific critique rather than an unresearched, knee-jerk reaction?

I’m not a physicist but I suspect the reception you will get will depend on:

(1) what predictions your model makes that enable its validity to be tested and

(2) whether it is compatible with the rest of physics.  

We get a lot of people who just dream stuff up with no attention to how their ideas could be validated experimentally, and a lot more who think their ideas can exist in a vacuum, when they are incompatible with everything else. Obviously no one is going to tear down the whole of physics, just because of a claim to account for a handful of phenomena in a different way.

Good luck.

[Mordred]

Just keep in mind simply linking the paper isn't sufficient where possible copy paste the relevant details here so no one is required to go offsite to look over your paper.

Other than that having mathematical detail is excellent we don't mind alternative theories provided they are testable (ie mathematics).

We do get some pretty wacky Speculations here if you have mathematics then it's a huge help.

For latex here use \[\frac{1}{2}\.]

I placed a period on last command to keep from activating. Good luck

Edited May 7 by Mordred

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, Aetherwizard said:

I experience tremendous bias in science forums favoring peer-reviewed concepts

You make that sound like a bad thing. Perhaps that is part of the reason you are not getting the response you'd like while on science forums.

[Aetherwizard]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

I’m not a physicist but I suspect the reception you will get will depend on:

(1) what predictions your model makes that enable its validity to be tested and

(2) whether it is compatible with the rest of physics.  

We get a lot of people who just dream stuff up with no attention to how their ideas could be validated experimentally, and a lot more who think their ideas can exist in a vacuum, when they are incompatible with everything else. Obviously no one is going to tear down the whole of physics, just because of a claim to account for a handful of phenomena in a different way.

Good luck.

I know that many people dream things up without math to support them. They come after me, too. 

The problem with cynics, who hide behind the claims of being skeptics, is that most cynics are unable to separate equations from ontologies. There is an incorrect belief that those who discover equations get to choose the ontology to explain those equations. I fully agree with the equations of both Special and General Relativity; however, by looking at different ontologies to explain those equations, we can extend current physics much further than it currently extends. We can discover additional valuable equations, leading us to a single overall ontology that can explain everything in the Universe.

For example, we use the concept of linear time to explain many of our equations. The equations involving linear time are well-tested and yield accurate results. However, there is no physical evidence for physical matter existing simultaneously in all time frames such that a linear timeline could exist. For all the claims of time dilation, no physical object has ever left the present moment or appeared unexpectedly from another moment. There is an alternative explanation that can use the same equations but explain temporal behavior in terms of chronovibration. 

Temporal reality may be a vibration between forward and backward time. Half-spin subatomic particles may have the "half-spin" property because they see only the forward-time component of space-resonance. This chronovibration frequency would equal the speed of photons divided by the Compton wavelength. In reality, the constant speed of photons in local space could be caused by the chronovibration frequency times the Compton wavelength. 

This constant vibration is physically observed as zitterbewegung and the inherent space vibration of quantum field theory. But I guess that many people will throw their arms in the air and yell "pseudoscience" because they are perfectly happy with the concept of a physical linear timeline, whether physical evidence exists for it or not. They are happy with discussing mysterious subatomic particle spin that doesn't spin spatially and want to leave it at that. 

All I'm looking for is a discussion with open-minded physicists who can stay grounded in equations and data and do not hold an irrational attachment to particular ontologies based on nothing but faith and familiarity.

24 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You make that sound like a bad thing. Perhaps that is part of the reason you are not getting the response you'd like while on science forums.

Peer review is exactly what I am looking for. What I am not looking for is a group of people who think that once an idea is agreed upon, then it becomes sacred and ineligible for questioning. It is my understanding of science that all scientific ideas are always subject to questioning even if they become popular. That is what is supposed to make science what it is. 

In fact, a good science teacher will not tell a student what is true or false but will present them with scientific tools and allow them to draw their own conclusion. If the science is truly settled, the student will unerringly arrive at the same conclusions as all other scientists.

I found several issues with the present set of ontologies, which have been presented as settled science but which nobody has been allowed to question.

[Ghideon]

6 minutes ago, Aetherwizard said:

There is an alternative explanation that can use the same equations but explain temporal behavior in terms of chronovibration. 

What is "chronovibration"? 

[Aetherwizard]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Just keep in mind simply linking the paper isn't sufficient where possible copy paste the relevant details here so no one is required to go offsite to look over your paper.

Other than that having mathematical detail is excellent we don't mind alternative theories provided they are testable (ie mathematics).

 

That is hardly fair. I have had to read numerous texts and papers to gain my physics knowledge. You don't think you should do the same? Try to explain the physics of the anomalous quantum Hall effect to a newcomer with a simple cut and paste of the "relevant" details. 

5 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

What is "chronovibration"? 

You may have to wait until tomorrow for me to follow up, as I believe I have a limit on how many posts I can make according to the forum rules. I gave a brief description of chronovibration in a previous post. 

[zapatos]

24 minutes ago, Aetherwizard said:

But I guess that many people will throw their arms in the air and yell "pseudoscience" because they are perfectly happy with the concept of a physical linear timeline, whether physical evidence exists for it or not.

 

25 minutes ago, Aetherwizard said:

What I am not looking for is a group of people who think that once an idea is agreed upon, then it becomes sacred and ineligible for questioning.

 

11 minutes ago, Aetherwizard said:

That is hardly fair.

I forget. Do you want to discuss science or the many ways you've been wronged?

[exchemist]

36 minutes ago, Aetherwizard said:

I know that many people dream things up without math to support them. They come after me, too. 

The problem with cynics, who hide behind the claims of being skeptics, is that most cynics are unable to separate equations from ontologies. There is an incorrect belief that those who discover equations get to choose the ontology to explain those equations. I fully agree with the equations of both Special and General Relativity; however, by looking at different ontologies to explain those equations, we can extend current physics much further than it currently extends. We can discover additional valuable equations, leading us to a single overall ontology that can explain everything in the Universe.

For example, we use the concept of linear time to explain many of our equations. The equations involving linear time are well-tested and yield accurate results. However, there is no physical evidence for physical matter existing simultaneously in all time frames such that a linear timeline could exist. For all the claims of time dilation, no physical object has ever left the present moment or appeared unexpectedly from another moment. There is an alternative explanation that can use the same equations but explain temporal behavior in terms of chronovibration. 

Temporal reality may be a vibration between forward and backward time. Half-spin subatomic particles may have the "half-spin" property because they see only the forward-time component of space-resonance. This chronovibration frequency would equal the speed of photons divided by the Compton wavelength. In reality, the constant speed of photons in local space could be caused by the chronovibration frequency times the Compton wavelength. 

This constant vibration is physically observed as zitterbewegung and the inherent space vibration of quantum field theory. But I guess that many people will throw their arms in the air and yell "pseudoscience" because they are perfectly happy with the concept of a physical linear timeline, whether physical evidence exists for it or not. They are happy with discussing mysterious subatomic particle spin that doesn't spin spatially and want to leave it at that. 

All I'm looking for is a discussion with open-minded physicists who can stay grounded in equations and data and do not hold an irrational attachment to particular ontologies based on nothing but faith and familiarity.

Peer review is exactly what I am looking for. What I am not looking for is a group of people who think that once an idea is agreed upon, then it becomes sacred and ineligible for questioning. It is my understanding of science that all scientific ideas are always subject to questioning even if they become popular. That is what is supposed to make science what it is. 

In fact, a good science teacher will not tell a student what is true or false but will present them with scientific tools and allow them to draw their own conclusion. If the science is truly settled, the student will unerringly arrive at the same conclusions as all other scientists.

I found several issues with the present set of ontologies, which have been presented as settled science but which nobody has been allowed to question.

OK. I look forward to learning from you in due course what tests you would propose to show the validity of your ideas.

[Ghideon]

32 minutes ago, Aetherwizard said:

You may have to wait until tomorrow for me to follow up, as I believe I have a limit on how many posts I can make according to the forum rules. I gave a brief description of chronovibration in a previous post. 

Thanks! I'll rephrase my question; please give a detailed definition of chronovibration including:

• Measurement: How can chronovibration be measured experimentally? What specific methodologies or instruments are used?
• Verification: Are there empirical experiments that have verified the existence of chronovibration? If so, could you describe these experiments and their outcomes?
• Units and Quantization:
  • What units (preferably in SI units) are used to quantify chronovibration?
  • Is chronovibration considered a quantized phenomenon, occurring in discrete packets, or is it a continuous variable?
• Conservation and Relativity:
  • Is chronovibration a conserved quantity within the framework of your theory?
  • How does chronovibration behave under the principles of relativity, particularly in different inertial frames of reference?

Additionally: If the aspects I mentioned do not apply, could you explain other relevant properties?

 

[Mordred]

57 minutes ago, Aetherwizard said:

That is hardly fair. I have had to read numerous texts and papers to gain my physics knowledge. You don't think you should do the same? Try to explain the physics of the anomalous quantum Hall effect to a newcomer with a simple cut and paste of the "relevant" details. 

 

I mention it as it complies with our forum rules. See the pinned threads above which contains the rules for the Speculation forum. You only need your specifics of your model not the  entirety of physics lol. 

Edited May 7 by Mordred

[joigus]

4 hours ago, Aetherwizard said:

More importantly, my work demonstrates that the so-called "anomalous" quantum Hall effect is better explained in terms of magnetic charge than electrostatic charge, which validates my theory. My theory similarly explains numerous other physics observations better than the Standard Model.

Are you positing the existence of magnetic monopoles as a cause of anomalous quantum Hall effect in different ferromagnetic materials?

Are you aware that magnetic monopoles have never been detected?

[swansont]

On 5/7/2024 at 12:22 PM, Aetherwizard said:

Are papers allowable as starting points for discussion on this forum?

!

Moderator Note

Material for discussion must be posted; just linking to a paper is not allowed.
If it’s not mainstream physics it needs to be posted in Speculations and comply with the guidelines of that section

 

[Aetherwizard]

3 hours ago, joigus said:

Are you positing the existence of magnetic monopoles as a cause of anomalous quantum Hall effect in different ferromagnetic materials?

Are you aware that magnetic monopoles have never been detected?

I am aware that magnetic monopoles have not been accepted as separated, but they were detected just a couple of months ago. In a new study published in the journal Nature Materials, scientists from the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, and the National University of Singapore captured the first naturally occurring magnetic monopoles emerging from collective electron behavior in flecks of hematite, a type of iron oxide.

I am not positing magnetic monopoles. My work posits electrons are bipolar magnets in themselves. The magnetic charge of the electron in my work is reciprocal to the electrostatic charge. The relationship is as follows:

e² = 8πα · e_emax²

Here, α is the electron fine structure, e² is the electrostatic charge, and e_emax² is the electron magnetic charge. The space quantum in which the electron resides has a 16π² geometry where the electrostatic charge for a space quantum is a dipole electrostatic charge of two spheres (4π)², and the reciprocal 16π² geometry for the magnetic charge is four tubular loxodromes 4 x 4π². Represented geometrically as:

The dark blue tubular loxodrome represents the electron geometry in this image. This image is a geometrical model; it is not implied to be the actual image of an electron. Think of it as similar to Feynman's diagrams. It is a visual aid.

The electron has the magnetic charge of the dark blue tubular loxodrome and the electrical charge of the blue sphere. 

This image is mathematically created using MathCAD 11 with available equations. This image is to be seen within the context of chronovibration. Chronovibration would be a temporal oscillation that begins at the Singularity (the point between two adjacent spheres) and traces each sphere in opposite directions in the forward time direction. When the forward time trace reaches the antipodes of both spheres, the time direction traces from both poles, spiraling inward around the axis and back to the Singularity. The rate at which this temporal oscillation occurs is the quantum frequency.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Material for discussion must be posted; just liking to a paper is not allowed.
If it’s not mainstream physics it needs to be posted in Speculations and comply with the guidelines of that section

 

I will then make it a point not to post a link to the paper in this discussion forum. However, if there are those who are truly interested in a scientific discussion and would like to read the paper, check my profile. Also, I can PM a link to the papers on ResearchGate at an individual's request.

Quote

 

Ghideon

• Measurement: How can chronovibration be measured experimentally? What specific methodologies or instruments are used?
• Verification: Are there empirical experiments that have verified the existence of chronovibration? If so, could you describe these experiments and their outcomes?
• Units and Quantization:
  • What units (preferably in SI units) are used to quantify chronovibration?
  • Is chronovibration considered a quantized phenomenon, occurring in discrete packets, or is it a continuous variable?
• Conservation and Relativity:
  • Is chronovibration a conserved quantity within the framework of your theory?
  • How does chronovibration behave under the principles of relativity, particularly in different inertial frames of reference?

 

Chronovibration is measured the same way photon speed is measured. A beam of photons is sent across a known distance and back. Since it is hypothesized that each photon quantum distance (Compton wavelength) occurs within one cycle of chronovibration, then the chronovibration rate must be:

F_q = c / λ_C

Time dilation theory is based on the assumption of a physical linear timeline. A physical object cannot move from the present moment to a different time frame unless all time frames in the past and future have static physical copies of the Universe. There is no evidence for a physical timeline, yet it is used by physicists. Chronovibration is the alternate explanation for physical, linear time. Chronovibration is a physical frequency of forward and backward time. The net result is that the present moment exists and makes no progress toward the past or future. However, half-spin subatomic particles would see only half the chronovibration cycle and, therefore, see only the forward time direction within the present moment. Thus, we physically perceive physical matter and experience entropy even though our perspective does not experience entropy. No matter where our physical body goes and how it ages, our mind always has the experience of being right now. That is the verification of chronovibration. It matches our physical reality.

Chronovibration is quantified as F_q as described above. It comes in precise discrete cycles. Because of the constant frequency of chronovibration, photons travel at a constant speed among space quanta.

Chronovibration is a constant. Since it does not change, there is nothing to conserve. In Relativity theories, chronovibration is the physical cause of the constant photon speed in local space. Chronovibration is the reason the Relativity theories work.

[pzkpfw]

34 minutes ago, Aetherwizard said:

...

Chronovibration is a constant. Since it does not change, there is nothing to conserve. In Relativity theories, chronovibration is the physical cause of the constant photon speed in local space. Chronovibration is the reason the Relativity theories work.

According to relativity, if you and I are in relative motion, we both consider our clocks normal (ticking one second per second) and we both consider each others clocks to be slow.

How does the above work with that?

Edited May 8 by pzkpfw

[Mordred]

Granted there is likely a lot you haven't posted yet with regards to your hypothesis. I will leave the time dilation aspects to others, for the time being. The question I have is how does your theory work with Lorentz force laws? In particular regard to the cross product relations between the two as described by Maxwell equations. I'm hoping you have at some point looked at the E and and B fields under vector/spinor field treatments. Understandably you likely haven't been able to post all the pertinent details to your hypothesis yet. The equations you have posted thus far only provide scalar quantities. 

 So understanding the vector relations between the two fields of your hypothesis would be useful. Well truthfully they will become rather essential. If your hypothesis has different relations this has huge ramifications in terms of the SM model in particular the Electromagnetic stress energy momentum tensor.

So I'd like to be clear how your model handles the following formula with regards to each field 

\[\vec{F}=q(\vec{E}+\vec{v}\times \vec{B})\] 

the \(\times\) is the cross product. Not to be confused with the multiplication symbol " *"

for any posts I make on this thread I will be using vector notation with \(A\cdot b\) for example being the inner product, the cross product \(A\times B\) for the cross product. I will likely not need the outer product for this discussion. for multiplication I will use \(A* B\) this is also for the benefit of other readers.

Also for other readers benefit. As magnetic force as per magnetic force law 

\[\vec{F}_B=q\vec{v}\times\vec{B}\] 

there is 3 key consequences. \(\vec{v}\) is particle vector

1) As the magnetic force is perpendicular to \(\vec{v}\) it cannot change the the magnitude of the velocity. 

2) as it does not have force parallel to the particle velocity it does no work.

3) Motion of a charged particle under the action of a magnetic field alone is always motion with constant speed. However it can alter the velocity direction.

same relations apply between E and B.

 

 

Edited May 8 by Mordred

[joigus]

7 hours ago, Aetherwizard said:

I am not positing magnetic monopoles. My work posits electrons are bipolar magnets in themselves. The magnetic charge of the electron in my work is reciprocal to the electrostatic charge. The relationship is as follows:

e² = 8πα · e_emax²

Does that same ratio hold for every charged particle in the universe? According to your theory, that is.

I'll be working on other members' queries, btw.

And I'm just curious. How did we come out in your tolerance test?  

[Aetherwizard]

12 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

According to relativity, if you and I are in relative motion, we both consider our clocks normal (ticking one second per second) and we both consider each others clocks to be slow.

How does the above work with that?

According to Relativity, the photon speed is the same throughout space whether we are in motion or not. 

Our perceptions may differ, but you must decide what topic interests you. Are you interested in how the Universe looks to your perception, the perception of the light source, or the space the photons move through? We can precisely calculate what the Universe looks like from our perception instead of another perception because the photon speed is always constant in the space it moves through. Relativity theories have no foundation if the photon speed varies in different localities. By "locality," we are talking about the quantum scale. 

[Ghideon]

16 hours ago, Aetherwizard said:

Chronovibration is measured the same way photon speed is measured. A beam of photons is sent across a known distance and back. Since it is hypothesized that each photon quantum distance (Compton wavelength) occurs within one cycle of chronovibration, then the chronovibration rate must be:

F_q = c / λ_C

I am struggling wit the first sentences; From your statement "Chronovibration is measured the same way photon speed is measured" I get that Chronovibration has the same unit and the same value as the speed of light in vacuum; is that what you mean?
Equation F_q = c / λ_C does not clarify how chronovibration itself is measured or detected distinctly from existing phenomena like the speed of light or photon energy. Could you provide a detailed methodology for how chronovibration is experimentally distinguished and measured independently?

[swansont]

20 hours ago, Aetherwizard said:

I am aware that magnetic monopoles have not been accepted as separated, but they were detected just a couple of months ago. In a new study published in the journal Nature Materials, scientists from the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, and the National University of Singapore captured the first naturally occurring magnetic monopoles emerging from collective electron behavior in flecks of hematite, a type of iron oxide.

Topological monopoles are not what joigus was referring to. (and aren’t actually monopoles)

20 hours ago, Aetherwizard said:

I am not positing magnetic monopoles. My work posits electrons are bipolar magnets in themselves. The magnetic charge of the electron in my work is reciprocal to the electrostatic charge. The relationship is as follows:

e² = 8πα · e_emax²

Here, α is the electron fine structure, e² is the electrostatic charge, and e_emax² is the electron magnetic charge. The space quantum in which the electron resides has a 16π² geometry where the electrostatic charge for a space quantum is a dipole electrostatic charge of two spheres (4π)², and the reciprocal 16π² geometry for the magnetic charge is four tubular loxodromes 4 x 4π².

If the are bipolar magnets then this should be the dipole moment; your equation does not show a reciprocal, and you should use something other than e to represent what you’re talking about, since e is already the fundamental charge. 

How do your units work here? Magnetic charge and electric charge would not be the same units.

 

How would one test your hypothesis?

 

20 hours ago, Aetherwizard said:

Chronovibration is measured the same way photon speed is measured. A beam of photons is sent across a known distance and back.

That doesn’t explain what it is, and without the details of how you would generate one and send it somewhere, is not very illuminating. 

[Mordred]

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

If the are bipolar magnets then this should be the dipole moment; your equation does not show a reciprocal, and you should use something other than e to represent what you’re talking about, since e is already the fundamental charge. 

How do your units work here? Magnetic charge and electric charge would not be the same units.

 

I was also trying to determine if the OP was applying the dipole moment. I still hadn't gotten a response in regards to whether or not vector relations are applied at any point. 

[Aetherwizard]

On 5/8/2024 at 3:57 AM, joigus said:

Does that same ratio hold for every charged particle in the universe? According to your theory, that is.

And I'm just curious. How did we come out in your tolerance test?  

Yes, but more than that. A neutron is considered to have a net zero electrostatic charge, hence the name. Yet the neutron beta decay results in a positively charged proton, negatively charged electron, and anti-neutrino. This refers to the electrostatic charge of the particles. I am proposing that, in addition, there is a magnetic charge for each subatomic particle. The magnetic charge is directly proportional to the mass of the particle. Therefore, the mass-to-magnetic charge ratio for the electron, proton, and neutron are the same. Furthermore, space quanta allow for a specific maximum mass (m_a) and a specific maximum magnetic charge (e_a²). Thus, the space quanta also possesses this mass-to-magnetic charge ratio. These values are explained in the theory if you are interested. It would take a lot of text to show the explanations and quantification, but you can figure most out by following the explanation for the electron.

m_e / e_emax² = m_p / e_pmax² = m_n / e_nmax² = m_a / e_a²

My theory anticipates the magnetic charge predicted by the fractional quantum Hall effect. The magnetic flux quantum of the quantum Hall effect is notated as phi naught:

φ₀ = 2.068 x 10^-15 weber

My theory provides a new system of units based on Quantum Measurement Units. The unit of magnetic flux is then equal to:

mflx = (m_e · λ_C² · F_q) / e_emax²

Converting MKS/SI units to QMU requires a charge conversion factor (ccf):

ccf = e / e_emax²

Therefore, we show that:

φ₀ / ccf = mflx / 2

In QMU, the mflx unit applies to the action of the quantum electron, as all of the QMU do. Another example is the gamma ray single escape peak which is equal to the QMU potential unit:

potn · ccf = 511 kV

The magnetic charge of the electron is also a consequence of the electron's angular momentum (Planck's constant) times the space conductance. Where the space conductance (Cd):

k_C = c · Cd · (μ₀ / ε₀)

e_emax² = h · Cd

As for tolerance, this is the Speculations section of the forum where people should post alternative theories. Yet, one is not allowed to provide a link to a properly referenced paper that has already been written to present a careful understanding of the theory. Let's say that I was correct in testing the waters.

20 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I am struggling wit the first sentences; From your statement "Chronovibration is measured the same way photon speed is measured" I get that Chronovibration has the same unit and the same value as the speed of light in vacuum; is that what you mean?
Equation F_q = c / λ_C does not clarify how chronovibration itself is measured or detected distinctly from existing phenomena like the speed of light or photon energy. Could you provide a detailed methodology for how chronovibration is experimentally distinguished and measured independently?

No, chronovibration is not the same value as the photon speed. The equation reads that the chronovibration frequency is equal to the photon speed divided by the Compton wavelength (quantum length). The photon speed is a constant in mainstream physics. The Compton wavelength is a constant in mainstream physics. This means the chronovibration rate must also be a constant. If the measurements of the photon speed and Compton wavelength are highly accurate, then it follows that the chronovibration is automatically known to a high degree of accuracy.

Of course, no physicist that I am aware of has as yet attempted to directly measure chronovibration, but only because they were not looking for it. Physicists have been assuming that physical temporal reality is a physical, linear timeline, yet there is no physical evidence for physical matter in any other time frame than the present moment. My theory claims the present moment is the result of an oscillation between forward and backward time, which results in a present moment that makes no progress toward the past or future. My theory further proposes that the half-spin nature of subatomic particles causes physical matter to see only the forward time direction within the present moment, which is what we observe.

I am a poor theoretician, not an engineer at a major lab. Albert Einstein did not design a nuclear bomb to demonstrate E=mc^2, that job was left to engineers. Similarly, the job for directly detecting chronovibration would be for the experts at NIST. However, if you would like to direct a sizable amount of funding my way, I could research the current technology and put together a plan for directly detecting chronovibration. 

17 hours ago, swansont said:

Topological monopoles are not what joigus was referring to. (and aren’t actually monopoles)

If the are bipolar magnets then this should be the dipole moment; your equation does not show a reciprocal, and you should use something other than e to represent what you’re talking about, since e is already the fundamental charge. 

How do your units work here? Magnetic charge and electric charge would not be the same units.

 

How would one test your hypothesis?

 

That doesn’t explain what it is, and without the details of how you would generate one and send it somewhere, is not very illuminating. 

You and I agree concerning magnetic monopoles.

I acknowledge your statement that dipolar subatomic particles possess a dipole moment. However, I want to clarify that my current discussion is focused on magnetic charge and not other characteristics of electrons. Please take a moment to reflect on my point and refrain from diverting the conversation towards an unrelated topic.

The reciprocal nature of the charge is easily seen by simple algebra:

1 = e² / (8πα · e_emax²)

The electrostatic charge is in the numerator, and the magnetic charge is in the denominator. In the same way, time is reciprocal to frequency.

It would be more productive if you took the time to listen to what I was presenting rather than telling me what to say. The e is the elementary charge. The charge is expressed as a single dimension in MKS and SI unit systems. In QMU, all charges are expressed as a distributed dimension. Hence, e becomes e². The value of e is the same in both systems.

You are correct that magnetic and electrostatic charges are not the same units. The physics of electrostatic charge is different from the physics of magnetic charge. The electrostatic charge has a spherical angle (1) and one spin (1). The magnetic charge has a steradian angle (1/4π) and half spin (1/2). The splitting of electrostatic and magnetic charges from the Singularity results in a distortion factor known as the fine structure constant.

1 = 1 · 1 · e² / (4π · 2 · α · e_emax²)

The geometries of the two types of charges are very different indeed.

To test my hypothesis, one could begin by studying and understanding it thoroughly. After that, it could be applied to known unexplained phenomena, such as the anomalous fractional quantum Hall effect. My theory proposes that magnetic charge is a quantum property of subatomic particles. Based on this magnetic charge, the Quantum Measurement Units of magnetic flux can predict the precise value of the "fractional" quantum Hall effect.

Your unwillingness to first study the theory does not give justification for dismissing it.

[Ghideon]

21 minutes ago, Aetherwizard said:

The equation reads that the chronovibration frequency is equal to the photon speed divided by the Compton wavelength (quantum length). The photon speed is a constant in mainstream physics. The Compton wavelength is a constant in mainstream physics.

As far as I know the Compton wavelength depends on the mass of a particle. What mass & particle does your statement "The Compton wavelength" refer to?

 

45 minutes ago, Aetherwizard said:

the job for directly detecting chronovibration would be for the experts at NIST. if you would like to direct a sizable amount of funding my way, I could research the current technology and put together a plan for directly detecting chronovibration. 

You said:

On 5/8/2024 at 3:18 AM, Aetherwizard said:

Chronovibration is measured the same way photon speed is measured. A beam of photons is sent across a known distance and back.

Can you clarify?

 

[Mordred]

Still doesn't answer the question I had regarding vectors it's a  rather important detail with regards to how the magnetic field behaves as opposed to how the magnetic dipole moment behaves. 

[Aetherwizard]

17 hours ago, Mordred said:

I was also trying to determine if the OP was applying the dipole moment. I still hadn't gotten a response in regards to whether or not vector relations are applied at any point. 

Maxwell's equations are based on the MKS and SI units. They first began with cgs units, which were inherently distributed charge-based. When MKS units were developed, the charge dimension was added, but it was assumed to be a single dimension. This led to cgs units being altered to include "stat" units. The MKS units of conductance, permeability, permittivity, inductance, and capacitance remained structured as distributed charge units. Still, all other units, such as potential, current, resistance, magnetic flux, etc, were provided only single dimension charge. 

This causes problems with important equations, such as the impedance equation. The impedance equation is thought to involve the addition of LC resistance to wire resistance. However, the LC "resistance" should be magnetic flux in a correct system of units. Thus, adding magnetic flux to resistance necessitates including the imaginary number to account for the mismatched units. There was a reason why Heaviside reduced Maxwell's twenty equations to four. Maxwell's equations did not always pan out.

In my work, curl is a dimensional unit equal in MKS to curl = 6.333 x 10⁴ coul² / (kg · m), but in Maxwell's work, curl is just a vector differential operator. You can see from this that Maxwell's equations cannot be useful in QMU. However, the QMU curl unit can be applied to General Relativity theory to calculate the straight path trajectory bending angle near massive objects:

G (2m_sun / r_sun) = 8.493 x 10^-6 (curl / 2) A_u

Here, A_u is the space quantum and the value of curl / 2 is given in radians. And so we see twice the length density of matter causes a deflection angle of half the space curl.

The curl unit is reciprocal to the QMU permeability unit, perm, where:

perm = 4π μ₀

The inductance of a coil in QMU equals:

indc = N · L (2 · perm) 

Where N is the number of turns of (2 · perm) and L is the length of the coil. I physically verified this equation by measuring the inductance of a known coil. 

This shows that the curl and perm units have physical meaning. It also demonstrates that twice QMU permeability directly measures the turns of an inductor.