Chapter 1: Introduction Introduction to
the Reader
NOTE OF WARNING BY THE TRANSLATOR The whole concept of the existence of a three dimensional phase space of time to maintain our reality is not of this world as Denaerde first introduced the pyramid model (1974) and brought it to the attention of some people. After a considerable time (2005) a way was found to translate the model in terms of well known fundamental concepts and ideas in the science of physics. Mainly as a point of reference they were the principles of quantum mechanics and general relativity theory. The translation itself was using the Newtonian principles and Heisenberg's uncertainty relation. The mathematics stayed simple but more difficult to grasp is the underlying understanding of the physics, the working of quantum mechanics in the phase of time and the relation to matter and gravity. This all because of new perspectives of our reality were introduced. Since the theory is heavily related to Denaerde's religious philosophy (revelations), e.a. the existence of eternal life is carried due to the existence of immaterial conjugated gravity field or the phase space of time is the absolute memory bank of all events of the evolution of our cosmos can be associated with the existence of God, one should be careful with copying the new ideas to other areas of science without mentioning the original source of reference. Although according to Denaerde his revelations were for the good of all mankind and not for a particular religious faction, the influence of the religious concept of personal guilt due to copying without consent can not be ignored, or the normal courtesy of giving the source of reference will suffice. In the opinion of the translator a reference to the pyramid model or theory (or Denaerde) seems to be adequate.
INTRODUCTION TO THE READER
Since the appearance of the article about the MOND-hypothesis in the Scientific American of 2002, the pyramid theory made a jump in the right direction. You will find all of this discussed below including the explanation of the MOND-hypothesis. As such the hypothesis was not in agreement to fit the pyramid theory, but the idea behind it boosted our physics model considerably. To explain it in some more detail, the MOND-hypothesis is based on a careful construction not to violate the principle of physics dictated by the general relativity theory (GRT). In our ignorance, in the beginning, we did the opposite. The supposition was made that a constant acceleration, extremely small outward pulling, of which its influence could only be seen at large scales as those of the galaxies, acted on matter every where in the universe. As will be explained, such a force, for acceleration times mass equals force, existing at infinity, goes against all common sense in physics. From this error came the idea of the equilibrium of matter systems (galaxies) all over our cosmos. The idea of an equilibrium of forces opposing gravity, while vacuum or empty space was still expanding around the galaxy, is the base for the equilibrium hypothesis, replacing the MOND-hypothesis. Integration of this idea with the concept of the three dimensional phase space of time was not too difficult, because the earlier work acted like a preprint. To be fair, in our discussions over a period of 30 years, Denaerde hinted to the existence of an equilibrium of forces between the matter and the anti-matter universe, but it was not taken up until now. However the rigorous application of the equilibrium hypothesis did not work out entirely. The concept of a force of equilibrium for the entire universe is still valid, but one cannot hide the acceleration of the galaxies with respect from each other. The break down came when it was realized that the derived quantum acceleration from the scaling exercise was not absolute but relative. Meaning the centres of mass of the galaxies would experience less acceleration if its velocity increases. See the constant of relative acceleration. Because one is dealing with force based on a quantum mechanism, the acceleration does not obey the laws dictated by GRT. The set up of the discussion is as follows: The first chapter is for preparation of the grounds and for the explanation of some problems in today’s astronomy. The second chapter treats the scaling exercise and proves the results in relative simple calculations. The results are almost unbelievable. The cosmology based on the general relativity theory is equivalent to the quantum cosmology of accelerated empty space. As a consequence the existence of a universe consisting of anti-matter for reasons of symmetry seems to be a fact. The third chapter tries to integrate the results of the previous chapter in transforming the quanta of empty space to propagate along a straight line, the direction of time, due to the behaviour of gravity as vector. The fourth chapter explains the pyramid model with respect to the three dimensional phase space of time. May be a conjecture, but certainly not fantasy either. But the fifth chapter gives some unexpected results about the scaling and the number of black holes in the universe. All within the constrains of the new discovered quantum properties of empty space. The whole derivation of chapter 2 to 5 is not very easy to understand, mostly for the reason that the author did not know where it all was leading to, and sometimes the wrong assumption was made. So if one looses the overview in the purpose of the chapters, it is advised to read chapter 6 first. Chapter 7 is the discussion and the proof for the self-consistency of the new 3D-quantum theory, while in the appendix certain difficult topics are reviewed. What is most astonishing to realize is that Newton could have reached the same results three centuries ago, had he known solely the principles of both the antagonistic theories of the 20th century (GRT and non relativistic quantum mechanics). For it is not even necessary to know these theories in detail, but only the principles of physics they stand for, had to be understood. However having found the quantum mechanic equivalent of GRT (the new properties of empty space under external force of another universe), one actually is completely at a loss, was it not that this strange new theory for gravity was available, the pyramid theory, providing the other necessary answers.
MOND HYPOTHESIS VERSUS DARK
MATTER
From 1950 onwards the observations within the
galaxies, as clusters of stars like our Milky Way, as the motions of stars
emitting light, were refined enough to conclude that the velocities in the
outer rims of the galaxy did not correspond to the gravity calculations
based on the density distribution of matter in these galaxies. In fact by
introducing non radiating matter the density distributions could be
corrected, explaining the higher rotation velocities in the outer parts.
In the mean time computer models based on the dark
matter hypothesis, are refined enough to explain partly the rotational
behaviour for a large class of galaxies. In the following, the dark matter
hypothesis is not valid.
See the Scientific American, June 2002.
Galaxy evolution; by G.Kauffmann and F. van den Bosch.
However being stubborn, some
astronomers thought about another explanation for the behaviour of the
stars in outer rims, without having to add invisible halos of dark matter.
The idea is not too bad, for careful analyses of the rotations required
only small outward going correction forces to get these higher speeds
correct. This is the MOND-hypothesis, standing for modified Newton
dynamics. To Newton’s 2nd law, force equals mass times
acceleration, a higher order term proportional to the square power of the
acceleration is added. The higher order term only becomes significant if
the forces are extremely small. Just these small forces for the
acceleration have the tendency to accelerate the stars outwardly,
explaining the rotational behaviour splendidly.
See, The Scientific American, Aug 2002. The
Mond-Hypothesis; In the pyramid theory the
MOND-hypothesis is replaced by the bold assumption that a constant
acceleration is acting on matter everywhere in the universe. This
assumption violates theoretical principles in physics, ea. the question of
how such a small constant acceleration is generated in the infinitely
faraway space; or how matter subjected to an outward directed acceleration
will empty the universe from within, but also in the end all matter has
infinite mass, because it reaches the speed of light. In short, violation
of Einstein’s general relativity theory. (GRT), and it was for these
reasons that the MOND-hypothesis was chosen.
The reason to stick with
our assumption here, making it implicitly adaptable to the pyramid theory,
is that one can overcome these objections by thinking of a universe of
equilibrium of forces. The calculated Hubble’s constant of acceleration
of about 1.6*10exp (-10) m/sec² compares to the constant used in the
MOND-hypothesis of 1.0*10exp (-10) m/sec² and based on observations of
the galaxies only.
THE EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN
PARADOX & BELL’S THEOREM
Nowadays, this well known paradox
stands for the impossibility of the unification of the general relativity
theory and the theory of quantum mechanics based on Heisenberg’s
uncertainty principle. In
layman terms it means that information of an event cannot be known beyond
the distance in space travelled by the speed of light. For more than half
a century the observations in quantum mechanics contradicted the light to
distance interpretation. Bell’s theorem is the mathematic formulation of
the paradox in favour to quantum mechanics. For literature of subtle
experiments testing bell’s theorem, one can find: Nature, sept 2003,
letter to nature; violation of Bell’s like inequality in single neutron
interferometry, by Y. Hasegawa, ea...
The pyramid model incorporates
Bell’s theorem as the steady state of the resonances of particles in the
phase space of three dimensional time. In this way all information of a
particle is known everywhere in our three dimensional reality. In addition
gravity could be explained similarly by this theory.
The discrepancy in understanding
of the EPR-paradox may be caused by the use of two kinds of extremes in
both theories. In GRT and the special relativity theory
Lorentz-transformations using the four dimensions of time and space with
the speed of light as absolute reference, are the basic frame work for
these theories, Cartesian coordinate transformations have supported most
of the quantum mechanic experiments of low energy. Lorentz transformations
describe the behaviour of mass systems relative at rest, but mostly
closely to the speed of light. They are without doubt absolutely valuable
in the physics for high energy collisions, but why particles maintain
perpetually their rest masses is not explained.
The more than centuries old
Cartesian coordinates transformations are only spatial and independent of
time meaning time is absolute and the same every where. In terms of
quantum mechanics absolute time could mean, the information of events is
more or less instantaneous available everywhere. The world of matter and
space is strictly three dimensional. So it seems reasonable that the
theories based on Cartesian coordinates include the information for the
resonance conditions of atoms and could explain the rest masses. Besides,
all Newtonian laws are well known and the formalism is readily available. This consideration lands us in the mathematic frame work based on
the Schrodinger equation, valid for electrical charged particles under
conditions of quantum mechanics. However, there is also a not explored
method, which may give us the information about gravity and rest masses.
Consider Newton’s kinematical
relation or energy relation for a mass under constant acceleration a ,or
called the rectilinear acceleration.
a 2s = c²
Where s is the covered distance
to reach the light speed c. The mass m appears not in the expression,
because it drops out of the energy expression. The initial velocity before
acceleration is of no consequence, everything is in absolute rest, not
moving. Normally, the probability wave length of a particle for its energy
is;
λ
= h / mc
Where m*c is the momentum of the
overall energy of the particle, here the rest mass. Apply this uncertainty
principle in the reversed way at above relation.
s or 2s = h / ms c
Where ms c is the
equivalent momentum due to the distance between events in quantum
exchange. The acceleration or equivalent quantum force is:
a = ms c³ / h
Briefly,
it seems one has a tool to execute scaling exercises for rest masses in
relation to Newton’s law of gravity, which is also valid per unit mass.
If a is nearly infinitely high, s is very short and approaches the Planck
length, vice versa if s is extremely large bridging the Hubble’s
distance for the universe, a is very small. The advantage of this type of
transformation should be clear. As soon as a and s are combined to their
product, the uncertainty condition disappears.
However,
this type of quantum transformation is unexplored and has ambiguities. The
tool is not unique. One has to define it. What shall s be? s or 2s?
By applying the definition; a
= ms c³ / 2h or a = ms c³ / fc h
By
introducing a dimensionless factor fc , one can assess if the used definitions in the
scaling exercises are correct or not.
Secondly, why not use the
relation; a 2s =
v² ? This is explained in the section; the constant of relative acceleration.
In
first instance the equilibrium hypothesis replaces the MOND-hypothesis by
making the bold assumption that there is outward going constant
acceleration acting on matter everywhere in the universe. It is directed
always opposite the direction to of gravity, but it is constant and not
changing in value. The consequence of this bold assumption is that one
finds out where it goes wrong and tries to find the means to correct and
if impossible to drop the hypothesis.
It
seems, due to the direction of this constant acceleration that it is a
reaction force to counteract the generation of gravity. This force should
be somewhere in equilibrium. The rigorous consequence of equilibrium is
that the system is at rest, may be moving but not accelerated.
As well
known, Newton’s law of gravity applies to the universe at rest and is
absolute in three dimensions. Or in terms of quantum mechanics, all
information about gravity contained in 3D-empty space is instantly
available everywhere. Taking the consequences, one should apply this law
to all matter in the universe. One should surrounds it with a big sphere
with a radius that as light travels since the beginning of the universe,
the Hubble distance, and make the supposition that the universe is in
equilibrium with the anti-universe with the same mass and overall size.
Apply Newton’s 2nd law. The force is equal inertia times the
acceleration and the result are:
Mtot aH = G Mtot² / RH² or aH RH²
= G Mtot
aH is Hubble’s acceleration and extremely small. RH is Hubble’s distance (radius) and G is the universal constant of
gravity. aH does
not seem a reaction force to gravity, but it is also a force to keep the
universe in equilibrium.
There
is only one radius in general where there is equilibrium of forces. For
radii smaller or larger, one should correct it into a resulting net force.
Then the net force could be attractive within the equilibrium radius or an
outward going force for radii greater than the equilibrium radius.
For galaxies having billions
of stars, there should be a radius of equilibrium. Beyond this radius the
stars are pulled away and internally the stars are contained by the net
gravity and their rotation around the centre of the galaxy. The point seems that the galaxy centre representing centre of
mass of the overall mass of the galaxy, is subjected to the acceleration aH.
Because aH is constant, one can calculate the time
interval RH = ½ aH t² to reach the edge of the universe for
non-relativistic conditions. However, at RH the galaxy reaches the light velocity and the galaxy inertia mass goes to
infinity, simultaneously with all mass in the universe, because its time
interval is the same. This contradicts with Einstein’s GRT.
After
having discovered a contradiction, one should try to rectify it and
restore the equilibrium condition. The only way it seems, is by making the
following suggestions.
1. Every galaxy has one or more super massive black holes.
2. Every super massive black hole is in equilibrium of
forces nullifying the out ward going force acting on the stars surrounding
the black hole.
It
means that gravity generated by the black hole is compensated by a
rectilinear acceleration directed outwards (opposing gravity). In fact,
whatever the reality of the spin- or event horizon of the black hole the
force should be reduced by zero. See the section about super massive
black holes etc. and the
scaling of the equilibrium black holes. So
one should apply the equilibrium hypothesis for the spin horizon.
Mg ab Rb² = G Mg Mb or ab Rb²
= G Mb
Mg is the galaxy mass, Rb is the spin or event horizon and Mb is the mass of the irreducible mass of the black hole.
However
how clever the idea of the equilibrium hypothesis may be, as an
intermediate step to our understanding, it was useful. Especially the
question could be analysed, if the quantum acts on the centre of mass of a
inertia system (galaxies, stars) or not, since it turned out that every
atom in our cosmos has a equilibrium of forces between its own generated
gravity and the momentary outward directed quantum acceleration.
top
THE CONSTANT OF RELATIVE
ACCELERATION
The constant of relative
acceleration is a consequence of two principal considerations. By rigours
application of the equilibrium hypothesis based on the consideration that
the gravity spin in every neutral atom is in equilibrium with its reaction
quantum force, the mass centre of a galaxy does not seem to be subjected
to this force and consequently leaves the galaxy at rest. Then basically,
violating Hubble’s law to scale the distance in our cosmos. The other
consideration is that a constant of acceleration according to GRT, makes
the galaxies having infinite mass at reaching the speed of light.
The point is that one forgot to
consider the influence of the quantum mechanism accompanying the constant
acceleration, for by supposition and so by definition aH is a quantum force. The behaviour in nature of bodies, microscopically,
is a consequence of interference of quantum mechanic waves (probability
waves) determining the groups velocity of the body, while the static waves
propagate with phase velocities of the order of the light speed or higher.
So it may be possible that the
quantum force of acceleration depends on the real velocity of the body
subjected to this acceleration. Realizing this, it was luckily very easy
to rectify our definition for the constant of quantum acceleration.
Using s as the path for the group waves of quanta, one can write the
formula slightly different. See Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen
paradox
a1 2s = c² a2 2s = v²
(a1 – a2)
2s = c² - v² arel 2s = c²(1
- v² / c²)
Using: s
= h / (ms c) arel = (ms c³ (1 - v²/c²)) / 2h
Replace the factor 2 by fc for the explained reasons.
Immediately one sees that arel goes to zero if v approaches the speed of light c. Secondly, any real mass
subjected to continuous relative acceleration leaves its rest mass
unaffected.
Force = m arel = m0 / (1 - v² / c²) * (ms c³ (1 - v²/c²)) / (fc h) =
constant
Or: force
= m0 * ms c³ / (fc h) ; force = m0 * as . With as the
absolute acceleration and m0 the rest
mass of the body.
Still GRT is violated, because
one cannot explain the expression of the relative acceleration according
to the principles upon which the general relativity theory is based. But
it seems that according to the EPR-paradox one is in agreement with
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
Note: The force on a body
subjected to relative quantum acceleration is always constant, even when
it is moving with a speed c. So all relative mechanical systems experience
this force as absolute in relation to their rest mass. It confirms why the
scaling in the next section actually works, because the whole exercise
began with the absolute quantum mechanical definition of the acceleration.
More over in that exercise it is proven that rest mass is a feature of the
mass of the vacuum quanta and Planck’s mass. See, The
scaling laws of the equilibrium universe.
In the early work of the pyramid
model, the string resonance theory described the phenomena of the rest
mass being a property of nullified energy of vacuum or empty space. The
link from the phase space of time to our reality could never been made
explicit, up till now.
top
|