|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
English CPH E-Book Theory of CPH
Section Five Opinions About CPH Theory
From: TONY BERMANSEDER To: TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com ; cph_theory@yahoogroups.com Subject: [cph_theory] RE: Graviton is a color charge Particle Sub-QCD/Hossein
Graviton is a color charge Particle Sub-QCD Indeed Hossein, you have got it in a nutshell. The sub-QCD is precisely what manifests the particle universe as it is measured in the particle accelerators. The 'currency' of gravity as you term it, is the sub-nuclear structure and this structure is indeed based on the graviton as a double-spin agent for the gravitational interaction. It is this NATURE of the graviton to rotate in 720 degrees relative to the 360 degrees of the gauge-photon of electromagnetism; which allows a 'double-symmetry' with respect to the mass-induced particles. One symmetry is the well known CPT-symmetry of space reflection parity P and Charge Conjugation parity C and time parity T. This CPT symmetry exchanges particles with antiparticles in switching spin and charge properties etc. Now the other symmetry is colour-charge symmetry and this switches cyclicity in cph-permutation states. The cph (for creation particle higgs and Hossein Javadi's website, where he discusses cph) states are colourcharge permutations which make a distinction between clockwise up-spin and anticlockwise down-spin in addition to the CPT symmetries which have photons defined as their own antiparticles. So the cph says that the antiphoton of QED is indeed NOT colourcharged (because it is a derivative of inertial mass and not a derivative of gravitational mass); BUT the 'virtual' antiphoton of the Heisenberg-Vacuum IS colourcharged and distinct from its mass-derived offspring. So as gravitational mass is prior to inertial mass; Einstein's equivalence principle can become reanalysed in a deeper manner. The gravitational mass is Hossein's cph and it is uniquely definable in the eigenfrequency of mass from the Big Bang 'quasi-singularity'. The 'timeinstantenuity' or 'Big Bang Period' is modular dual to this frequency and it is the weyl-Limit of General Relativity and the wormhole centre of any Black Hole post Big Bang. The cph became distributed during the de Broglie inflation (inflaton of space) as a vortex distribution of Higgs-Boson templates. And just as Hossein says below, the electron also has colour charge in association with other particles (this is the classical fermi-scale of the electron radius and aslo the size of the W-bosons by the way). As 'free' point particle, the electron is incompatible with say photons, because it cannot interact via cph. This is most evident in pair-creation of electron-positron from a sufficiently energetic photon (gamma ray). This cannot occur UNLESS a nucleus (say proton) is associated (as proven in my last post). The classical reason is the energy-momentum conservation and the gauge reason is that it is the protons GRAVITON emission, which allows interaction between point particle leptons and point particle photonic bosons. The mediating agent can be called cph, as the 'mixing degree of freedom' for the colour charges. If asked, I shall explain this in some detail. But overall, Hossein's post below is descriptive of the REAL 'push gravity' and in full concordance with the standard models in the relativities, the particle symmetries and the cosmologies. Tony B.
Javadi's CPH Welcome to One of the Largest and Most Visited Sources of Philosophical Texts on the Internet. 40,000 - 60,000 Visitors Each Day and Still Rising –
Leibniz's Monads and Javadi's CPH
Sam Ghandchi
After the 1979 revolution, Sam
Ghandchi, as a co-founder and member of the editorial board of
Nedaye Azadi, co-published this daily afternoon paper in Tehran,
till the paper and all other free papers of the time, were shut down
by the Islamic Republic in 1981. Nedaye Azadi was a democratic paper
similar to Peyghame Emrooz, Ayandegan and other similar papers of
those three years of semi-democracy in Iran of 1979-1982. The back
issues of Nedaye Azadi may still be available in the archives of
Library of Congress.http://www.ghandchi.com/394-MonadsCPHEng.htm
Leibniz's Monads and Javadi's CPH
Recently I had the pleasure of
studying a new TOE (Theory of Everything) called CPH [http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/hjavadi/CPH-English.htm].
CPH has been proposed by an Iranian physicist by the name of Hossein
Javadi. Metaphysics[http://www.ghandchi.com/392-AristotleEng.htm], Aristotle, in contrast to the atomists, as I have discussed in details in my paper The Status of Monism and Pluralism in Aristotle's views pluralism as a conceptual notion, where the "order of explanation" is monistic, whereas the "order of sense", is pluralistic. In that paper I summarized Aristotle's view as follows: "...[For Aristotle,] there is a hierarchy of concepts that refers to concrete things and in the order of explanation, the universals are first and particulars are last, whereas in the order of sensation, the particulars come first and universals are the last. In the order of sensation, the most fundamental concept is substance which is followed by the concepts of unity (or being) and first principles. In the order of explanation, it is the opposite and first principles are the primary concepts followed by unity (or being) and substance...To discover whether plurality or unity are primary in Aristotle’s metaphysics, we should ask which one is prior in the order of sensation, because Aristotle, in all his philosophy, gives primacy to the sensible things rather than to the abstract ideas...Aristotle writes in his Physics “The universal is more knowable in the order of explanation, the particular in the order of sense [Book I, 189a 5-10, BW, p.228].” Based on the two interpretations of Aristotle’s metaphysics in this paper, plurality is next to particulars and unity is next to the universals. Therefore, plurality has primacy in the world as it is, and unity has primacy in our ideas and explanations. In other words, unity is the farthest from the perceptive reality and may be even subjective, and plurality is the closest to the perceptive reality and is the state of objective reality. Thus I can conclude that pluralism is what is defended in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, though as I explained, with all the intricacies of Aristotle’sunique metaphysical scheme [http://www.ghandchi.com/392-AristotleEng.htm]." Leibniz's Monadology has fascinated me for years, ever since reading about it the first time in Bertrand Russell's works twenty five years ago. I thoroughly discussed Bertrand Russell's own philosophy of Logical Atomism in Logical Atomism: A Paradigm or a Lost Cause [http://www.ghandchi.com/393-RussellAtomismEng.htm]. The following is what I wrote in that paper about the similar challenge of Leibniz's Monadology and Russell's Philosophy of Logical Atomism: "...the subjective notion of truth is objectified when he [Bertrand Russell] claims that the truth of the world can be reduced to “facts that make up the truths of the world.” This was very similar to Leibniz’s Monadology where the subjective notion of mind was *objectified* by monads. The atoms relating to the truth in the objective world, according to logical atomism, are not particulars, relations, or qualities; but a unique unity of them corresponds to the truth, i.e. the atomic facts. Thus, these atomic facts, though complex, are not reducible to their parts as if the objectification of truth is a ghost holding them together [http://www.ghandchi.com/393-RussellAtomismEng.htm]." It is interesting to remember how Leibniz was so much perturbed with the concept of *action at a distance* in Newton's gravitational theory to the point of ending up in the wicked arguments with Newton. In fact, their fight about calculus was not a difference about theory, but was rather about who invented calculus first, whereas their disputes about action at a distance were their real *disagreements* which were even raised to a theological dispute.
Javadi is also trying to answer the issue of action at a distance by his theory of transformation of the vector quantity force and the scalar quantity energy, when he shows a quantum of work can be defined by a quantum of force multiplied by Planck's Length (Wq=Fg.Lp). Thus just like Leibniz, for Javadi, there is no action at a distance, and the space is filled with gravitons, that interact with each other. For Javadi, the gravitons are nothing but the CPH when it has a spin, and CPH (Creation Particle Higgs) is the basic particle of the world with constant mass moving at constant speed in an inertial frame. In other words, the whole world is a simple five dimensional world (spin is considered a dimension). Javadi's model, not only explains the inconsistencies of quantum mechanics and relativistic theory, it even explains classical issues better than the 10-dimensional model of string theory. For example, force being a vector quantity, means that the conservation of momentum conserves in all three physical directions at the same time, whereas mass and energy being scalar quantities, means the conservation of mass and energy conserve one-dimensionally, at least when dealing with them in classical mechanics. Javadi's model, through the transformation of force and energy, makes these fundamental concepts of physics identical. Eventually the CPH Theory, makes the main challenge of modern physics, the unification of the three forces of nature possible. Of course, I should also note that from the technology standpoint, the success of nanotechnology (http://www.ghandchi.com/306-NanoEng.htm) is one of the best corroboration of atomism, because nanotechnology is nothing but rebuilding the whole nature artificially "atom by atom" as Feynman said it in his 1959 speech. Moreover, let's remember what Bertrand Russell wrote of analysis: "One purpose that has run through all that I have said, has been the justification of analysis, i.e. the justification of logical atomism, of the view that you can get down in theory, if not in practice, to ultimate simple, out of which the world is built, and that those simples have a kind of reality not belonging to anything else [Russell, Bertrand, The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, LK, p. 270]." Below I present my own analysis of Leibniz's Monadology, from the viewpoint of philosophy of science, hoping that while the discussions of CPH theory continue in the physics community, I can help similar discussions about the philosophical model of CPH theory to start in the circles of philosophy of science [http://www.ghandchi.com/358-falsafehElm-plus.htm]. Overview of Leibniz's Monads from a Philosophical Perspective In the opening of "Principles of Nature and Grace" [Leibniz, G.W., Philosophical Papers and Letters, Leroy Loemkev Edition, University of Chicago, 1956, Vol. II, p.1033-4], Leibniz defines ‘substance’ in a Cartesian style as ‘a being capable of action;’ and ‘simple substance’ as ‘that which has no parts.’ Then Monads are introduced as equivalent to ‘simple substances’ and he continues by asserting “Monas is a Greek word signifying unity or that which is one.’ Plato refers to Mind as *the* Monad [Aristotle, De Anima, The Basic Works of Aristotle, Richard Mc Keon Edition, 1941, P.540] and most commentators think that Leibniz, contrary to Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes (his principle inspirers), has actually made mind divisible in his metaphysic and has presumed its parts as Monads. Thus, it is believed that the nature of Monads is mental. On the other hand, Leibniz’s referring to Monads as ‘true Atoms of nature’ [Leibniz, Monadology, George Montgomery's Translation, Open Court Publ, Illinois, 1980, P.251] bears a certain resemblance to ancient Greek atomism. Nevertheless, most commentators agree that Leibniz’s Monads differ from the atomists’ atoms insofar as the former do not embody extension whereas the latter do, i.e. the Monads are not geometrical points and are metaphysical points [Copleston, Frederick, A History of Philosophy, Vol. IV, The Newman Press, Maryland, 1960, P.266]. Therefore, despite the undeniable resemblance of Monadology to atomism is undeniable, the nature of these "atoms" (i.e. the Monads) remains to be investigated separately and I will do this scrutiny in the following lines. Revealing the differences and similarities of Leibniz' s Monads with Plato’s Forms, Aristotle’s substances, and Descartes' simple substances is not enough to fathom the nature of Monads. Various commentators stressing the different qualities of Monads alleged in Leibniz’s numerous works have mostly proposed these elements to be mental and some even believed them to be material elements. In my opinion, the problem of these commentators is that they are limited to the framework of Western philosophy in which ultimate reduction is either mental or material and this fact has been the reason for futile attempts to classify Leibniz as an idealist or a materialist. Although Leibniz was essentially familiar with Western philosophy and certainly Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes had great influence on his thought, nonetheless his speculations about the nature of simple substances (Monads), is unique and in a sense resembles some of the Eastern philosophies. I think it is evident from the book Monadology that Monads are the basic blocks or the atoms of the world. That this reductionism was accepted by Leibniz can be gathered from his presumption of the world to have ‘true atoms.’ Thus, the question is what is the nature of his reductionism-is it materialist, idealist, or is it something else? Materialists reduce all reality to some kind of material principle and synthesize the world from this principle, e.g. some of the modern atomists presume the atomic particles (or sub-atomic particles) as the basic blocks of the world and biological elements (like DNA or RNA) or mental elements (neurons) are assumed to be ultimately comprised of material sub-atomic particles (i.e. electrons, mesons, etc.). The idealists reduce all reality to some kind of mental principle and synthesize the world from this principle, e.g. the subjective idealists consider everything to be in our mind and some quantum physicists similarly believe that the existence of electrons depends on our thought. The foregoing may be regarded as a brief sketch of materialism and idealism in Modern philosophy and science. In the East, especially in Indian philosophy (e.g. Vedanta philosophical systems), there is another kind of reductionism, almost unbeknownst to Western concepts, which we may call biological reductionism. In this thought, the ultimate biological elements are not molecules of ultimate material elements. Instead, the ultimate material elements (e.g. electrons) are comprised of ultimate biological elements (whatever they may be called). From such a perspective, electrons are even more "biologically" ultimate than RNA/DNA, and still the ultimate biological elements are to be found in the elements comprising electrons, in short the ultimate biological element are the building blocks of even the electron and sub-atomic particles. Probably, if we would like to express such an ideology today, the best word for the ultimate element would still be Entelechy, the word that Leibniz used interchangeably for Monad. I think the above is the crux of Leibniz’s theory of the nature of Monads. The Monads are neither mental nor material, but rather they are biological, that is the ultimate blocks of the world are biological elements--Entelechies. Entelechy was postulated by Aristotle in his biology, but for Aristotle, Entelechy was not prior to material elements. Leibniz borrowed the word but changed its status, elevating it to the supreme position of the ultimate constituent of the world. Using this conception of basic elements of the world, he views ‘matter’ as described below: "Every portion of matter may be conceived as like a garden full of plants, and like a pond full of fish. But every branch of a plant, every member of an animal, and every drop of the fluids within it, is also such a garden or such a pond [Leibniz, G.W., Monadology, ibid, P.266]." The above perspective is so common among many pantheistic schools of the East that occasionally some mystic philosophers can be found *talking* to stones or other inanimate objects. Actually, the above obliterates the distinction between inanimate and animate objects by making everything animate. Moreover, Leibniz considers Entelechy as being also the basic element of Soul or Mind and clarifies it: "If we wish to designate as soul everything which has perceptions and desires in the general sense that I have just explained, all simple substances or created Monads could be called souls. But since feeling is something more than a mere perception I think that the general name of Monad or Entelechy should suffice for simple substances which have only perception while we may reserve the term Soul for those whose perception is more distinct and accompanied by memory [ibid, P.255]." In other words, Soul is just a kind of Entelechy and he later assumes it to be the ‘dominating Entelechy’ of animals [ibid, P.267]. The above thoughts have led to Leibniz’s fantastic belief that "...animals and souls begin from the very commencement of the world [ibid, P.270]". Also his belief in metamorphosis [ibid, P.267], and his final word which very much resembles the Eastern immortality of organism rather than the Western immortality of the soul. He writes: "I believe, therefore, that if the animal never actually commences in nature, no more does it by natural means come to an end. Not only is there no generation, but also there is no entire destruction or absolute death [ibid, P.268]." The biological nature of Monads makes their essential qualities to be *apperception* and *appetition* and even motion itself [Leibniz, G.W., Principles of Nature and Grace, Philosophical Papers and Letters, Vol. II, P.1034-36]. Moreover, their relations are not by efficient causes (monads are ‘windowless’) and they are related by final causes. This is why he considers final causes as the principle of efficient causes and gives priority to final causes [ibid, P. 1040]. His God is *not* the Unifier but rather the Harmonizer of the world of Monads. Even this concept in Leibniz, which separates him from his colleague and contemporary Spinoza, very much approaches some Eastern pantheists’ beliefs in Harmony rather than a Western view of Unity of the world. The views that give primacy to final causes and their refutation by Spinoza have been discussed in details in Sufism and Fatalism [http://www.ghandchi.com/354-SufismEng.htm]. The intricacies of Leibniz’s metaphysical scheme and its relations to the nature of Monads shows why he arrived at the picture of the world as the "City of God" with a dominant monarch, God, as the ultimate Monad and the Creator of this world.
Sam Ghandchi, Editor/Publisher IRANSCOPE http://www.iranscope.com April 3, 2005
Related Articles: The Status of Monism and Pluralism in Aristotle's Metaphysics http://www.ghandchi.com/392-AristotleEng.htm
Logical Atomism: A Paradigm or a Lost Cause http://www.ghandchi.com/393-RussellAtomismEng.htm
Pluralism in the Western Thought http://www.ghandchi.com/301-PluralismEng.htm Other Articles http://www.ghandchi.com/SelectedArticles.html Source: Philosophical Texts on the Internet http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ghandchi.htm
In
teamwork_cph@yahoogroups.com, Muahdeeb Saladin
....just curious...if he were not Iranian...would
he then be "not polite?" Arak is a eautiful place in Iran, most are
polite there...but then again...so are many other peoples in other
Kindest regards, From: Tom Keith To: cph_theory@yahoogroups.com Cc: InfoPhysics@yahoogroups.com ; absoluteaether@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 5:21 AM Subject: Re: [cph_theory] Fw: [InfoPhysics] Einstein Defends Classical Physics and Quantum Theory
Allen, It is great that gravity particles acting like a homing beam to self-powered particles servo-feedback make sense to you. Hossein's CPH_theory GUT was started 5 years before the Keith-Motorola Mechanical Energy Relativty and GUT. Hossein assumed particles emit particles to shift mass. The Keith-Motorola GUT assumed particles emit particles to shift mass also. It is uncanny how much Hossein's CPH-theory GUT and the Keith-Motorola Mechanical Energy Relativity and GUT have in common.
Tom
From: "Allen Francom" <light_rock@yahoo.com> To: <InfoPhysics@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 5:09 AM Subject: Re: [cph_theory] Fw: [InfoPhysics] Einstein Defends Classical Physics and Quantum Theory
From: John Obrien To: javadi_hossein@hotmail.com Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 9:08 AM Subject: TOE I've missed your writings. How are you doing? I hope all is well. I need more good Idea's. These groups are talking too much about Individuals and not enough about Idea's. I've done some calculations on your Plank's Gravity formula and it is very close to Hubble's constant. How did you Know? Can you expand please? I Thank you for your good Idea.
John
From: Allen Francom To: cph_theory@yahoogroups.com Cc: Absoluteaether ; Wave-Structure-Matter ; Robert O'Keeffe Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 9:54 AM
Subject:
Re: [cph_theory] Fw: G.S .. Sandhu's Elegant "The Elastic Continuum
of Nature"
From: "Allen Francom" <light_rock@yahoo.com> To: <InfoPhysics@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 8:01 AM Subject: Mike - one more - CPH - Re: [InfoPhysics] Rhythmic Time as de Broglie Eigenstates
----> From: "Mike" <wilmac@aapt.net.au> To: <InfoPhysics@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Mike - one more -
CPH - Re: [InfoPhysics] Rhythmic Time as deBroglie Eigenstates
Right. I have this admittedly vague sort of synthesis buzzing in my
head
From: Allen Francom
THX From: SEAN To: mailto:cassinihuygens@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 6:36 PM Subject: Re: [Cassini Huygens] Desgin of CPH Dear Hossein, Thanks for your postings and welcome to our group. I'm really glad you could join us. Allow me, if you will, to introduce you to the group. Hossein (Amir) Javadi is a quantum Scientist/Theorist and is a world leader in his field. His brilliant CPH theory is not an easy read. I've been following it's progress for some time now and although I can't claim to truly understand all of it's concepts, I suspect We will hear a great deal more of it in the future. Hossein is Iranian, and has endured a long fight for recognition in his own country. SEAN
"Jose Molina" <chepemolina@yahoo.com> Dear Amir I want to Know how the cph theory explain the interaction at distance (like a changing polarization ,to a pair of photon the other mathc the same polarization instantly even at far distancy ) the information betwen the two particles travel at high speed more than the light .In the cph theory you have Vc that is >> c :How much greather is VC than c. String Theory implies more than 4(space and time) dimensions to explain this interaction(11 dimensions).
sincerely Jose
From: Jose Molina To: Hossein Javadi Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 6:06 PM Subject: Re: Joe; Entangled PArticles interaction at distance Dear Amir I have studied the cph theory recently .I think it would be a consistency theory.specially when you see the conversion from energy to force You can count with my help .We'll be in communication
sincerely
Jose From: Jose Molina To: Hossein Javadi Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 5:52 PM Subject: Re: I need Your Help
Dear Hossein Sorry for not answer you as soon as posible but i was sick "dengue " and i revisited my mail until now . I glad that this group is very active an they are working in cph theory .I was thinking in cph and I believed for the moment you can utilizate diagrams (like Feynman diagrams) to explain the interaction of cph and force . And I was thinking to use tensor and vector calculus to explain the interaction between force and energy but only is a idea i will in contact with you an Allen sincererly
From: Jose Molina To: cph_theory@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 10:13 PM Subject: [cph_theory] casimir effect and CPH
the quantum field theory
predict a vacum density energy the evidence of this energy is the
cassimir effect this is a small atractive force betwen two
conductive neutral plates
F = pi. h.c .A/(480 a4) where
A=area,h=plack conts,c light speed
From: Jose Molina To: Hossein Javadi Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 10:30 PM Subject: Re: Joe; Entangled PArticles interaction at distance Dear Amir I see an analogy betwen the cph theory and the string theory in cph carry gravity force and have a external force applied to it it take spin and convert or can be see like graviton .or cph can transform in a different particle depending what circuntstance or external force interac with it . In string theory depending of the vivration of the string.it can see with some quantum properties like spin and momentum and the string function or transform in the respective particle .I dont know if the observation is agree with the cph theory Sincerely Jose
From: SEAN To: Hossein Javadi Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 10:19 PM Subject: Re: Thanks.
I've been thinking a little about your situation. I'm very pleased to have your friendship, but I am also very impressed with CPH theory. It needs to be promoted. I see your problem here. On one hand, you are faced with old, stubborn men who simply do not wish to understand anything new. Not only do they not understand, they actively oppose you. And yet, you need the backing of your government to properly promote your theory. The only way forward here would seem to be promotion in the West. The more popular you theory becomes here, the harder it be for your government to continue ignoring you. What can I do to help promote CPH theory here in England? Who are the people I need to talk to? How do I go about this? I have a fear that one day, some western scientist will simply copy your work, call it something new and claim credit for it. That would be a great shame. Besides, CPH theory is important, and I'd like to help a little more.
Sincerely, SEAN.
From: Mike > that. I certainly wish you well in your endeavors. If you are proven right, then you will > be my teacher, as long as you don't try Mike's riveting gun teaching technique.
mike
From: Mike Tom Keith newton112@cox.net
Hossein,
We will never forget our humble and brilliant physics pioneer.
Your friend Tom
From: Mr Jim Stevenson My Very Dear Friend Hossein: Thank you for you kind reception to my come back. I often think of you and wonder what you are doing. I apologize if I have repeated any of your original theories, but lease understand that I totally lack the mathematical concept of theories and am reliant upon logic as my only source of understanding. Perhaps this is a blessing in some ways, but it is liken to sailing a ship at full anchor. Hossein, I would be interested to know what your specialty is. I feel like an ant among giants because of my inability to pursue the mathematical aspects of Theoretical Quantum Physics. I deeply appreciate your friendship and the friendship of the entire group.
Your friend, always, Roy
Dear Hossein!' You are welcome. I disagree with your assessment about the incompatiobility of cph-theory with other theories of an unification nature. cph--theory has somevery good premises, the most important one, which I tried to Iydescribe to you and Allen, but which you both either misunderstood or ignored. This is illustrated on your homepage and involves the CHANGING of cph-Higgs-Energy THROUGH COLOUR into all of the other particles of the Standard Model. George and I are NOT competing with your brainchild Hossein; we are trying to help you to get all the good aspects of cph-theory (there are some bad ones in my analysis of it) out in the open and linking them up with other models. You seem to be unable to see the parallels, Allen seems to less prejudiced in that regard, maybe because his scientific training is unpretentious. You are too defensive about your own position Hossein, you seek acknowledgment (don't we all) and you attempt to further the case of the cph-model in raising certain issues and then download the most advanced supporting material from other sites (say kiarashniknejad). You have an unique and valid premise with cph-theory Hossein, you do not need the indirect acknowledgment of the 鸰erts'' to bolster your case- stand on your own convictions. This is not to say, that you shouldn't use the expert's work. Use it whenever you can, but indicate just where the experts agree (and disagree) with you. The ɸplosion of Black Holes a furphy, for example.All the expert papers you have downloaded would strongly disagree with your analysis of exploding Black Holes.They admit micro-primordial Black Holes (which are very very hot) to explode after having shrunk to Hawking Entropy Limits; but they now make a clear distinction between microscopic and extremal Black Hoiles and the Cosmological Ones (limited to a minimum mass of a little over 6 tons). Now many researchers (remember those are the papers you are downloading as files), even take issue with calling those 'Black Holes', they (Susskind, Strominger, Vafa) would prefer a link to say magnetic monopoles or Cosmic Rays or Gamma Bursters - a more fundamental particle origin, perhaps. But enough of this; your basic ideas are very good and deserve further investigation. Your best avenue is to investigate the mechanism of transformation. How does the Graviton change in gauge association into the weak-interaction weakons for example. This engages the Higgs-Restmass-Induction Mechanism and relating the masses of the weak- vector bosons (W and Z) to the Higgs-Boson . If you use your physical intuition and describe the cph-particle as a chromodynamically unified colourcharge (such as is done in QCD); then you will make rapid progress. Some mathematical application will however be required.
Best of Wishes and many
Greetings to you Oh, I should clarify when I'm being especially
dumb.When I said "Higgs Particle" I meant "CPH". It's not quite the
same thing. In retrospect, it seemed like it is important to make
this distinction.
I hope that some of my
expressions have found equal favor with you.
Robert Neil Boyd wrote: |
