Uncategorized

Dividing a positive-negative charge produces positive and negative parts, but splitting a magnet gives two more magnets, each with its own north and south pole (Figure 5.13). Joining two small magnets also gives a big one, so big magnets come from small ones, and the smallest possible magnet is the electron.

Metals like copper can conduct electricity because their electrons are free to move, but the electrons in plastics can’t move freely so they can’t conduct electricity. Electrons also explain why metals can be magnets but plastics can’t. The electrons in a metal usually point randomly but it becomes a magnet when they all point the same way (Figure 5.14), which plastics can’t do. Magnetism, like electricity, is based on electrons, so what is it? 

An electron is essentially a tiny magnet whose north pole is at right angles to its spin, and whose south pole is the opposite, so could spin cause magnetism? In quantum theory, all matter spins, so it is a basic property like mass and charge. Current physics calls spin imaginary, because an electron is a point particle that can’t spin, but in this model, electrons spin outside space.

If spin causes magnetism, north and south poles are directions not parts, just as a plate has a top and bottom. Charges can divide because a black and white plate can divide into black and white parts, but it can’t divide into top and bottom parts, so a magnet can’t divide into north and south parts. There can never be a north pole without a south pole because spin up always allows spin down.

Yet particle models postulate particles with one magnetic pole called magnetic monopoles. Nothing in Maxwell’s equations of magnetism prohibits them, so despite no evidence, they are argued to be possible (Rajantie, 2016). But if spin causes magnetism, monopoles can’t exist, so this is yet another fruitless standard model search, like that for gravitons.

What then does spin do? By the Pauli exclusion principle, opposite-spin electrons can occupy the same point but same-spin electrons can’t. This is because electrons can spin into different regions of quantum space (4.7.1), so if one spins up and the other down, they don’t overlap, while same-spin electrons compete for the same space. Spin lets opposite spin electrons occupy the same point but not same spin electrons.

Again, the network of space passes on all processing, including its spin. It doesn’t affect gravity much but it interacts between magnets. Between opposite magnets, opposite spins co-exist so space deepens but between same magnets, same-spins compete so space is shallower.

Opposite magnets deepen the space between them, so the network there runs faster because there is less competition for space. Matter restarts more often where the field is faster, so the magnets move together, i.e. attract. But between same magnets, same-spin processes compete for the same space so the network runs slower. The magnets restart more often away from each other, so they move apart, i.e. repel. Magnets then attract or repel by biasing the speed of the quantum field between them, just as charges do but in a different way.

Gravity, charge, and magnetism then move matter by biasing the quantum field. Gravity biases the field strength, to attract only, while charges and magnets bias the field speed, to attract or repel. In all cases, an object moves when the field around it makes it tremble more often one way.

Charge and magnetism both involve electrons, so why don’t static charges affect magnets? If magnetism is a spin direction, and charge is a processing remainder, these properties won’t interact. Spin doesn’t change charge, and charge doesn’t change spin, so they don’t affect each other. 

Why then are electrical and magnetic fields at right angles? Electrons as one-dimensional matter can only move as matter on one axis. When an electric field creates a current, electrons must align their matter axes to move in the same direction, which also aligns their spins. An electron that moves on its matter axis spins at right angles to that, so its magnetic and electrical effects are at right angles.

Currents cause magnetism because aligning electrons to move in a direction also makes them spin the same way, which is magnetism. Electrons moving in one direction down a wire spin one way, and in the other direction spin the opposite way. Equally, when a magnet moves, it acts to align the electron’s axes so they move as a current.

Why then does magnetism fade faster than charge? Charge decreases as an inverse square because it spreads on a two-dimensional sphere surface but when spin deepens space, magnetism also spreads in a third dimension. The effect disappears between same poles, so magnetism fades on average more than an inverse square but less than an inverse cube.

In summary, biasing the quantum field makes objects move, and gravity biases its strength while magnetism and charge bias its speed, so they all arise from the same quantum field.

Next

To us, mass and charge seem different but in processing terms they are sides of the same coin:

1. Mass is the net processing that runs, and

2. Charge is the net processing that doesn’t run.

Matter constantly overloads the network of space, then restarts at some point in the field around it. The processing that runs before the restart is mass, and the remainder is charge, which can be positive, negative, or neutral. The network passes on all processing, whether done or not, so the distribution of matter reflects both its mass and charge.

Gravity is based on the effect of mass. A big mass like the earth spreads a massive distribution that weakens with distance, to make the quantum field stronger closer to earth. Local objects then move toward the earth because they restart more often where the field is stronger. The effect is slight but even a slight asymmetry causes movement over time. Gravity then moves objects by biasing the field around them, so do charged objects interact for a similar reason?

Recall that each point of space passes on its current processing before running any new processing received, so every quantum cycle has two phases:

1. Share: Pass on all current processing to its neighbors, which dilutes it, then, 

2. Execute: Run any processing received, and if it overloads, request a server restart, where:

a. If the request is ignored, just carry on.

b. If the request is accepted, restart the server processing in a physical event.

The share phase passes on all processing, not just that of mass but also the charge remainder. These remainders don’t affect the gravity of small objects much, but between opposite charges they cancel, so the quantum cycle completes faster, because the share phase has less processing to pass on. In contrast, between same-charge bodies the remainders add, so the cycle slows down because the share phase has more processing to pass on. Charged bodies then interact to make the quantum field between them run faster or slower.

Opposite charges speed up the field between them, so they restart there more often because servers accept requests on a first-come first-served basis, which makes them move together, i.e. attract. Conversely, same charges restart less often in the slower field between them, so they move apart, i.e. repel. Charges then attract or repel by biasing the speed of the quantum field between them.

It follows that charges move other charges as gravity does, not by pushing or pulling but by changing the field around them so they naturally move. Matter constantly trembles microscopically, so if it quivers more often one way, it moves macroscopically. One object can then affect another at a distance, but while gravity changes the quantum field strength, charge changes its speed. 

Why then is charge stronger than gravity for small objects? In competitions where speed counts, like running, a team that is 5% faster than others wins all the races, not just a few more. Where matter restarts in the field around it is also a competition for server access where speed counts. Hence, a slight increase in speed can have more than a slight effect, so charge effects are stronger than gravity because they bias speed not strength.  

Gravity and charge move matter by biasing the quantum field differently, namely:

• Strength. Matter tends restart where the field is stronger.
• Speed. Matter tends restart where the field is faster.

Both effects reduce as an inverse square because the quantum field follows Gauss’s law. The quantum field then explains gravity and charge, but what then is magnetism?

Next

Magnetism seems to be distinct from electricity, but Maxwell’s equations describe both and experiments connect them.

A static charge isn’t magnetic but if it moves, a magnetic field appears around it. In Figure 5.12, passing a current I through the wire produces a magnetic field B. Wrapping a wire around a nail and passing a current through it makes it a magnet, and that effect stops when the current does. Electricity can then cause magnetism and the reverse is also true, as spinning a magnet with a wire around it induces a current in the wire. Electric cars are then possible because magnetism and electricity connect:

“We will see that magnetism and electricity are not independent things – that they should always be taken as one complete electromagnetic field.” (Feynman et al., 1977).

Is magnetism then just charge in another guise? (Note 1) It would seem not because:

1. Static charges and magnets don’t interact.

2. The magnetic field is at right angles to the electric field.

3. Gauss’s law doesn’t apply to magnetism, which reduces more like an inverse cube.

4. Dividing a charged body gives positive and negative charges but dividing a magnet gives two more magnets, both with a north and south pole.

Magnetism acts differently from charge so how one field causes both is unclear. Light is also described as electrical and magnetic waves vibrating at right angles that cause each other, in a self-sustaining loop, but that is illogical. Current physics can explain electricity and magnetism separately, but not how they combine. It is as if we understood horses and birds, then found a winged horse we couldn’t explain. No credible theory explains why electro-magnetism has two different effects, that occur in different directions, and weaken differently.  

The standard model says that charges repel when virtual photons push them apart, but the same photons also make charges attract, and move magnets, so fairies with photon wands would explain electro-magnetism just as well! One field with two different effects needs two different causes, not the same cause conveniently producing what we see.

Next

Note 1. The logic is that a moving electron’s length is foreshortened by special relativity giving more negative electrons than positive protons in a given length of wire, so parallel wires with opposite currents attract, but this could be correlation not causation

In the last section, the earth’s matter superposed a gradient on the quantum field around it to make other matter to move towards it, so gravity acts at a distance with no need for virtual gravitons. But if the quantum field that explains gravity is the only field, what causes electrical and magnetic effects? Can one field produce three completely different results?

QR5.5.1. Electro-magnetism

QR5.5.2. Remainders Spread

QR5.5.3. Spin Spreads

QR5.5.4. One Field For All

Next

One of the strangest predictions of general relativity is that if a large body collapses under its own gravity, nothing can stop it becoming a black hole, a region of space with gravity so strong that even light can’t escape. Astronomers have discovered that nearly every super-massive galaxy, including our own, has a black hole at its center.

Physics has no force to stop this collapse, so a black hole is considered to be a point of infinite mass density, called a singularity, surrounded by an event horizon that is the region where light can’t escape its gravity (Figure 5.11). This is based on the equations but in most sciences, an equation that gives an infinity is an error not a fact.  

Processing models can’t have infinities because they can’t be computed, so in this model, matter can’t become infinitely dense because space can’t become infinitely small. Space, like a screen, has a pixel limit, and each pixel has a finite bandwidth.

A black hole then isn’t a singularity but a region of space that is at maximum capacity, so it can take no more. Just as the finite transfer rate of network limits the speed of light, its a finite capacity limits the density of mass in a black hole. What stops the collapse of a black hole isn’t a force, but the bandwidth of space itself.

Black holes then expand as they acquire matter because more space is needed to handle it. A black hole’s Schwarzschild radius is linearly proportional to its mass, but if that mass was at a point, its effect would decrease as an inverse square like gravity. 

Instead of a singularity of infinite density, a black hole is a volume of space at maximum capacity. Instead of radiating light, it absorbs it, so black holes are in effect dark stars that absorb energy (Barcelo et al., 2009). Sagittarius A*, the center of our galaxy, isn’t a hole at all, but a super-massive dark star with a halo of light whose dark matter keeps its stars together. To us as matter, dark matter is destructive, but for the galaxy, it is beneficial.

Next

Special relativity gives every mass in the universe its own clock. I have one, you have one, and so does every planet, but they only keep the same time if they have the same speed. General relativity adds that gravity alters time as well, so time slows down near a large mass like the earth. Hence it takes a lot of computing to make GPS navigation work because the clocks of satellites tick at a different rates depending on their altitude and speed.

How then does a large mass like the earth change time of objects around it? A virtual time ticks by as processing cycles complete, so as processing increases, it will run slower. The gravity gradient of the earth then has the effect of increasing the network load closer to earth, so it slows down our time. A clock on top of the Empire State Building then ticks faster than one at the bottom because the quantum network is running faster there.

Would we live longer on a planet with more gravity? To others it might seem so but to us, time would pass as usual. A larger planet dilates time relative to earth but the number of life events in our lifetime wouldn’t change.

Gravity is a processing gradient, so the network of space runs slower where it is stronger, which slows down time. We feel gravity as a force, see space as an extent, and experience time as life events, so it isn’t obvious why they relate as general relativity says, but if the same finite source creates them all, there will be trade-offs.

Next

Astronomers have long known that light bends when it passes a star. Photons have no mass for gravity to act on, but Einstein’s theory that matter changes space predicts it. He imagined a light shining in a lift that is going up, as shown in Figure 5.10. As the lift rises, the light curves relative to it, so if gravity equates to an acceleration, stars should bend light passing by, and they do.

The light passing a star bends because, from its perspective, it is going in a straight line, just as light in the lift is. Stars then don’t bend light by pulling it, but by changing the space around to make it bend.

This model also predicts that a star will bend light by changing the space around it, as the gravity gradient can cause refraction (3.6.2). Light bends when it enters water because it spreads more slowly in it, as slowing down one side of a spreading wave skews it that way. Water then bends light by being a denser medium not by exerting a force.

Similarly, the gravity gradient around the sun slows down light as it get closer because the network has more to do. In effect, space becomes denser closer to the sun, and light waves refract when they enter a denser medium. Light then bends when it passes a star for the same reason that it bends when it enters a denser medium like water.

A large mass like the sun alters the space closer to it to make it a denser medium for light, so light bends. Gravity then does curve space, as Einstein said, but both arise from the quantum field around the sun. How then does the gravity gradient affect time?    

Next

Electrical and magnetic fields are cancelled by their opposites but gravity has no opposite, so nothing can stop it. If gravitons caused gravity, anti-gravitons could block them, but it isn’t so, and if gluons held the nucleus together, an anti-gluon stream could break it apart, but again it doesn’t happen, though anti-gluons are said to exist. 

No physical barrier can block the spread of gravity because the quantum network passes processing on before any physical events occur. Gravity is then unstoppable because it always spreads, so no anti-gravity shield can block it. 

A free-falling object accelerates as it falls to earth because the field moving it increases by Gauss’s law, so it moves faster. Einstein’s field equation relates this to space-time changes, as the earth is said to curve the space around it to make objects naturally fall towards it (Figure 5.9), but no mechanism for this is given.

In this model, space-time changes correlate with gravity because the quantum field causes both, so how does matter change space and time? 

Next

Newton discovered gravity but found it inconceivable that inanimate matter caused it:

“It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact;…” (Wilczek, 2008), p77.

Yet if matter only moves by physical contact, how can the earth keep the moon in orbit without touching it, or the moon cause tides on earth? Newton had no answer, nor does physics today, as that matter alters space and time is just as inconceivable as that it acts at a distance. Even a field that creates particles can’t change space and time, so how does gravity work?

The simple answer is that gravity is a field that doesn’t create particles. We know that fields act at a distance, as a router can provide Wi-Fi for a whole house, so why can’t a gravity field around the earth keep the moon in orbit? The earth’s magnetism affects compasses in a plane far above it, so gravity can also keep people in their seats. Just because the standard model can’t invent a particle to explain gravity doesn’t mean it isn’t a field.

Matter is processing on a network that passes it on, so the earth will have a distribution around it that decreases with distance. By Gauss’s law, a flux spreading over a sphere diminishes as the inverse square of its radius (Figure 5.8) (Note1). If a processing flux is the same, the earth’s distribution will weaken as an inverse square, to give a processing gradient around it. What then is its effect?

The earth’s distribution strengthens the quantum field around it closer to earth. Matter restarts more often where the field around it is stronger (5.3.3), so local objects fall to earth. Essentially, the massive distribution of the earth biases the tremble of matter towards itself. It doesn’t touch a satellite in orbit but just changes the field around it so it moves more often one way. Gravity then doesn’t pull objects, as Einstein said, but imposes a processing gradient on the space around it to bias their movement.

This model is based on the quantum field, defined as the total processing of every point of space. This field, based on quantum theory, then attributes the earth’s gravity to the processing gradient its matter imposes on the quantum field around the earth.  

Note that the standard model calls its fields quantum fields, but they don’t explain gravity. It also calls quantum theory imaginary, and so doesn’t accept the quantum field proposed here. Quantum realism replaces all standard model fields with one field, by accepting that quantum theory is real, so the strong, weak, and Higgs fields are unnecessary inventions (4.5.3). 

Classical objects only move when touched, but the gravity gradient of the earth touches all the objects around it, to bias their natural tremble towards itself. Gravity then arises from the quantum field, so it is unstoppable.

Next

Note 1. The flux transferred across a sphere surface reduces as the inverse square of its radius 1/r². Newton’s law of gravity F = g.m₁.m₂/r² with m₁ and m₂ masses and g constant is an inverse square flux law, as is Coulomb’s law F = k.q₁.q₂/r² with charges q₁ and q₂ and k constant. Both laws come from Gauss’s flux law.

When a plane accelerates, we feel the back of the seat pushing us to keep up with the plane, but parachutists in free-fall feel no force at all as gravity accelerates them to the earth, so:

“It’s not the fall that kills you; it’s the sudden stop at the end.” Douglas Adams

But if there is no force, isn’t that being at rest? Einstein’s insight was that free-fall acceleration equates to being at rest, so gravity isn’t a force at all but the earth curving space and time around it, which he called “the happiest thought of my life!”

Gravity is then indistinguishable from acceleration, so passengers in a rocket accelerating at 1g feel an effect like gravity on earth and can sit down and have a cup of tea just the same. But if gravity equates to acceleration, isn’t acceleration caused by particles?

Einstein’s theory replaced Newton’s inexplicable force-at-a-distance by an equally inexplicable distortion of space and time. Instead of a fixed stage, the stage was now changeable, so gravity can bend particles by changing their space and time, not by exerting a force.

This also explains Galileo’s finding that but for friction, all masses fall at the same speed.  A heavy object has more inertia, so it should be harder to move, but if gravity is equally greater, the effects cancel. A ton of lead hits the ground at the same time as a feather because according to relativity, gravity varies with mass as inertia does. It was a brilliant solution, but it left the standard model with a force that none of its particles could explain.

If gravity works by changing space and time, the standard model idea that gravitons cause gravity denies general relativity, just as its assumption that particles move on fixed paths denies quantum theory. Why then does physics accept a model that contradicts its two best theories?

Next