Forum A Framework for a Fundamental Theory? Dean L. Sinclair Abstract: A model called the "Oscillator/Substance Model" may provide a framework for a comprehensive theory uniting the fields of physical science. Its basic tenet is "All existence is the result of sequential 'actionreactionaction' interactions within a Substance/Substrate of undefined basic composition and extent." This continued "sequential equilibration" results in constant motion such that the system is composed of/controlled by oscillators. Some of these oscillators are vortexes which have long term stability. Their interactions result in "Matter." Among the results of this view are an explanation for "charges," and the related definition of the size, shape and form of electrons and protons; a solution to the problem of the "Four Forces of Nature," and an explanation of the "Matter of the Missing Antimatter." More details of the developmental process which led to this model, some definitions which arise from it and the relationship to some of the other theoretical approaches is also covered, as well as implications of the model in various areas. For one example: What may be a very basic reason the Hadron Collider has a rather low probability of ever being able to fulfill its original mission is mentioned. Much of the information covered in the paper is available in a number of short "pages” at http://www.Groups.Google.com/group/oscillatorsubstancetheory This is an edited and annotated expansion of a talk prepared for the VigierVII Symposium. London, England, July 1214, 2010, which because of certain systemic failures, was not presented. A Framework for a Fundamental Theory? It is my honor to present some information about a model called the Oscillator Substance Model which may provide a framework for a comprehensive theory uniting the fields of physical science. The basic tenet is, “All existence is the result of sequential actionreactionaction interactions within a Substance/Substrate of undefined extent and undefined basic composition. A Substance/Substrate which may be considered as if it be a liquid at the triple point, able to respond to slight pressure differences as any of the three basic phases of solid, liquid or gas. The continuous, sequential equilibration within the substance results in constant motion such that the system is composed of/controlled by oscillators. Some of the oscillators are vortexes having long term stability, these vortexes, the electron and proton and their mirror units, the positron and antiproton, interact to form what we know as matter. This view produces valuable insights that often differ from the conventional viewpoint by 180 degrees. One reason being that the model, by shifting the generally accepted interpretation of the MichelsonMorley Experiment from proving the nonexistence of an “Aether,” to showing some characteristics necessary to an allpervasive Aether, and thence changing the idea of the Speed of Light from an absolute maximum velocity of anything, to an average velocity which is a limit of information transfer, changes the viewpoint considerably. When, in addition, Planck’s Constant be reinterpreted from a Constant of Action (Energy times Time) to a more prosaic, Constant of Angular Momentum, there arises a form which can be combined with the Speed of Light as an average tangential velocity to produce an equation, mass times radius equals Planck’s Constant divided by the Speed of Light. This is an equation which can be used to define a family of oscillators. This series of shifts produces a totally different view of reality from the same basic, centuryold data which underlies SpaceTime and Quantum Mechanics. [A good coverage of the Michelson Morley Experiment with annotation is given in the Wikipedia Article, “Michelson Morley Experiment “ Discussion of the development and usual interpretations of Planck’s Constant, is given in the Wikipedia Article, “Planck’s Constant.”] In the model which arises positive and negative charges are seen as the result of reversed rotation/inversion senses of vortex oscillators. As these vortex units have mass and radius limitsand, corresponding frequency limits, charges will vary from a maximum value to zero and back, Charges are not fixed values, but have limits and an average. As the vortexes responsible for charges have determinable limits, their sizes and shapes can be estimated. The results of these determinations have interesting results for the theories of atomic structure. The liberty is taken to insert, here, most of the contents of a “page” previously published on the Internet Oscillator/Substance Google Site under the title, “The Electron and Proton as Oscillators.” http://www.groups.google.com/group/oscillatorsubstancetheory/web/theelectronandprotonasoscillators If it be taken that the relationship between energy and electromagnetic radiation be a fundamental relationship of our universe, then examination of that relationship should furnish clues as to the nature of our universe. If Planck's Constantthe constant which relates energy to electromagnetic radiationbe equated to its definition as an angular momentum, one obtains the equation, m x r x v = h. Evaluating this at "c," the speed of light, we obtain, mrc=h which can be rearranged to mr=h/c. As any equation of the form xy=K can be taken to describe an oscillator, by writing it in the form, xy=K=yx, to emphasize the interchangeability of the values of the two variables, we can see that the equation, mr=h/c, can be taken to define a family of oscillators of constant torque, h/c. With an “average” value of mass and radius where m = r = (h/c) ^0.5. When the electron is checked to see if it fits into this family, it is found to fit with one limit set with the "rest mass" as the mass, "m", and the "Compton Wavelength" as the radius "r." For an oscillator the absolute values can be switched to determine a “reciprocal limit”. For this particular oscillator, the other oscillatory limit would be absolute value of Compton Wavelength as mass and the absolute value of the "rest mass" as the value of the radius, "r." The set of values best known to this writer is the centimetergramssecond, “cgs,” system, which will be used throughout this discussion in analysis of oscillatory motion. Noted in our Universe as "Rest Mass" and "Compton Wave Length" for the electron are 9.10953 x 10^28 g for the mass, correlated to 2.42631 x 10^10 cm for the Compton Wavelength which corresponds to the radius. Switching the absolute values of the units, the other oscillatory limit would be 2.43631 x 10^10 g. correlated to 9.10953 x 10^28 cm. (The rest mass and Compton Wavelength values are taken from the Chemical Rubber Company, Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 78th Edition.) We can analyze the proton in the same way to obtain the values: Minimal mass, maximal radius: 1.67264 x 10^24 g. and 1.321401 x10^13 cm balanced by the other limit of maximal mass, minimal radius 1.321401 x 10^13 g. and 1.67264 x 10^24 cm. It is to be noted that the electron is both heavier and lighter than the proton and larger and smaller, depending upon where the observation be taken. At the average values they are the same, as would be expected of all oscillators of this family. Often oscillators are defined by the frequency limits within which they operate. If we do this for the electron, using the above radius figures as expected wavelengths, we find the maximum frequency limit to be about 3.3 x 10^39 cycles per second and the minimal frequency to be about 1.25 x 10^20 cps. The inversion frequency would be about 6.4 x 10^30 cps. For the proton the corresponding frequencies would be about 1.8 x 10^34 cps and 2.3 x 10^23 cps. The inversion frequencywhich corresponds to the average or inversion situation, where m = r = (h/c) ^0.5, which is about 4.7 x 10^19 grams at 4.7 x 10^19 cm would be the same as for the electron, about 6.4 x 10^30 cps. These figures would indicate the electron would be operating over a band width some eight orders of magnitude greater than that of the proton. If the mathematics above accurately reflect the "real world," observations are of limit situations of minimal masses and maximal sizes of the electron and proton when measured in “Our Reality,” which is "balanced" in an alternative, and equally valid, alternate reality by a maximal mass and minimal size limit. It is possible that both electrons and protons may be considered as combination oscillators with one oscillator operating between minimal size at maximal mass and the 4.7 x 10^19 limits and the other operating between the maximal size at minimal mass limits and the "4.7 inversion situation.” Both the electron and proton would show "nodes" at the oscillation limits and at the central inversion "equator." This 2/1 ratio of limit to inversion point has an interesting coincidence to the idea that “Quarks” occur in pairs, one with “2/3 of a charge” the other with “1/3 of a charge.” Possibly the Quarks, considered fundamental particles in the Standard Model of Particle Physics are observational phenomena due to this nodal characteristic of oscillators. The interaction of this “internal structure” of electrons with that of the proton and other "particles." may be the reason that Quarks are supposedly confirmed by scattering data. [The Internet Wikipedia Article, “Quark Model,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_model gives an idea of the stunning complexity of the Quark approach to atomic theory. It would seem that there should be a much simpler set of explanations for the “alternate states of matter” which arise from “atomsmashing.”] The equilibration process in a substance can be considered to result in constant pressure adjustment. Pressure fits the criterion for a true Force; therefore, the various Forces of Nature can be seen to be a result of interpretations of pressure adjustments. The “Four Forces of Nature” are usually said to be Gravity, Electromagnetism and the Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces. Gravity can be explained as differential pressure between vortexes and/or vortex aggregates. It is a set observational phenomenon which has been explained as an “Attractive Force.” Electromagnetism is another set of observational phenomena due to interactions of vortexes in the medium. Again, these interactions are describable mathematically but do not fit the criterion for a Force, “For every Force there is an equal and opposite, for every action a reaction.” (1) The “Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces” may be considered to arise from the idea of there being neutrons, as such in nuclei. The protonneutron nucleus model, used since the 1930’s, is good for “bookkeeping” purposes;’ but, it requires a good deal of mental agility to try to justify it logically. Particularly whenon occasionit requires transformation of an electron and proton into a neutron, a reaction which is the reverse of the known “spontaneous,” exoenergetic transformation of the neutron into an electron and a proton. The “Missing Antimatter” Matter can be given a double explanation. The first part of an explanation is that the separation (or inversion) instant of an oscillatoran event which we know as the “Big Bang” resulted in the definition of two oscillator halves, having reversed rotation/inversion orientations. Smaller oscillators, within these halves, will be influenced by the larger oscillator. The orientation of one half of these smaller oscillators will tend to be stretched, the other compressed, so that one rotation/inversion will tend to be expressed differently than the other. In our Universe, it appears that the stretched form which appears most obviously is the electron. Its “almost identical” mirror, the “positron,” appears to be somewhat suppressed. If one half of a separable oscillator be considered “Matter,” and the other half be “Antimatter,” thenas the electron is always considered matter the positron is antimatter. The two units are logically halves of a separable oscillator, to which they rejoin in the “annihilation” process.(3, 4) The electron and proton are halves of another separable oscillator, the neutron. The electron is still “Matter,” hence the proton, as the other half of a separable oscillator, is “Antimatter!” Since the neutron is like the B sub s Meson which has been shown to oscillate between matter and antimatter states“neutral,” it may be considered as either Matter or AntiMatter. It may also be possible that all basic units, including the electron and proton, invert between “matter” and “antimatter” states as does the Bsubs Meson. (5, 6, 7) From the foregoing, we see that what we call “Matter,” thought of as combinations of electrons and protons, might be more accurately considered as combinations of the “Matter” electrons, and the “Antimatter” protons. Logically, there is, somewhere, an “antiVerse” where the rotation inversion dominant expressions are the opposite of ours; but, also, we apparently have no truly “Missing AntiMatter.” We only have semantic confusion. (8) The “neutron count” of an atom can be considered simply as the number of nucleons that, at any given instant, are in antielectron, antiproton states. It is possible to do an accounting process as follows: Assume that the “atomic weight” to the nearest whole number, represents a sum of the total “heavy nucleons, “considered as protons and antiprotons. Assume also that the atomic number represents the number of electrons and the number of protons. Now, we assume that there is an exact balance of matter and antimatter units. According to the discussion above that would mean there would be the same total number of protons and antielectrons as there are electrons and antiprotons. ((If instead of neutrons in the nucleus, we guess there to be an antiprotonantielectron association where we have always said, “Neutron.”) Both of these summations add up to the atomic weight. We could also look at this as an electrical neutralization balance, as the number of electrons plus the number of antiprotons balances the number of protons and positrons. It. also, may be noted that the postulated protonantielectron pairs may be considered as having energy levels parallel to those that are written for the “outer electrons,” that is. the protonelectron pairs, and, correlations may be made to a set of energy levels including both sets. Taking a simple example: Li7, atomic number 3, atomic weight 7, would have the standard “outer electron distribution” of “1s2, 2p1, “ which we can say would cover the energy levels for electrons and protons, the distribution for the antielectrons and antiprotons would be “1s2, 2s2; “ while a combination distribution would have the structure “1s2 , 2s2, 2p3.” The electronantiproton energy level postulate represents what has long been known as a stable set ,and the combination number represents a stable set plus a “halffilled, subshell” which is known also to be a situation of some stability. Considerations of this type lead to interesting correlations within the “Periodic Chart (9). In addition to the “halves of oscillators” argument above, there is a mathematical argument that, given that both are “positively charged units,” the positron and the proton belong to the same category. If a positron of a certain kinetic energy were slowed down enough, with the “lost” Kinetic Energy all being converted to Mass, the Positron would be convertible to a Proton. If we let “m “ and “v” be the masses of a Positron and “M” and “V” be the masses of the Proton, equate the Kinetic Energy expressions for the two units, and forget about the meaninglessfor our purposesonehalf value which is in both, we can write mv^2 = MV^2 and rearrange this to m/M = V^2/v^2. Inserting the “rest masses” for the Positron and the Proton in this equation, we see that were a Positron slowed to about 1/42 of some initial velocity, it could be convertedat least theoreticallyto a Proton. (10) The logical combination of the electron and positron to form a combination oscillator with release of “Energy” as “Annular Radiation” does not seem to have been published anywhere prior to the SciScoop article, “Negatron plus Positron Equals Zerotron?” (3 ) There are several logical arguments for this model for “annihilation” and “pairproduction” being reciprocal processes involving a previously unsuspected combination oscillator. One of these arguments involves another often neglected aspect of science theory. This is the fact that both mass and velocity are variables. When the momentum expression, “mv,” is integrated to form an “Energy” expression, mass is usually considered to be constant and only velocity to vary, producing the well known “Energy” expression, E= (mv^2)/2 . This expression possibly should be said to apply only to “Kinetic Energy,” the “motion package” associated with moving a point and its associated, “pointcentric” motions along a vector. If it be considered there could be a situation wherein the velocity cannot change, then mass would be the variable. Doing the integration under these circumstances, produces another equation, “E” = (vm^2)/2. (11) Considering that, in reality, both mass and velocity will vary, it might be better to simply integrate, “p”, momentum, itself, as a variable, to obtain the expression, (p^2)/2 as a more accurate picture of the “total Energy” that is, of a “total motionpackage.” This leads to (m^2v^2)2, the expression obtained by reinserting “mv” for “p.”(12) In the “annihilation,” it is noted that the Energy release is “mc^2,” where “m” is the “rest mass” of each particle and “c” is the speed of light. This is the “Energy” release expected from the dissipation of the Kinetic Energy of two units meeting “headon” on the same vector at velocity, “c.” It is usually considered that the electron and positron are “destroyed” rather than combining. It doesn’t seem to be generally realized that when objects meet “head on,” the Kinetic Energy is dissipated, the objects may be changed, but they are not converted totally to “Energy.” In the usual handling of the case of the Electron and Positron, the “Second Energy Expression“ (vm^2)/2, is not considered, and all of the “Motion” which would be described by (m^2v^2) is also not considered. . As it may be argued that the “Collision Energy” would more properly be represented by m^2c^2, than mc^2, it can be seen that there is definitely an “m” value which is not accounted for.... It makes sense that the two units, when they finally become oriented on the same vector, after some time existing as one or another of the forms of “Positronium,” the shortlived (in our time scale) “nearzeromass” analog of Hydrogen. [This is a unit having some characteristics of both atomic and molecular Hydrogen. ( 13) ] When the two “halves” reach the proper orientation, Kinetic Energypossibly actually vibrational Energyis lost as a wave disturbance, “Annular Electromagnetic Radiation,” and the two vortexes coalesce into a pulsator. [This would be somewhat analogous to a molecule collapsing to an atom, or a molecular cation collapsing to an atomic cation. These may be the processes whereby Deuterium may arise from the Hydrogen Molecular Cation and Helium 4 from the Deuterium Molecular Cation. The latter may be an explanation for the observation of the formation of “Helium 4,” along with “excess heat” in certain electrolysis experiments with Palladium electrodes. This is the most studied type of reaction in the ongoing research in the field once called “Cold Fusion,” and now known as “Condensed Matter Nuclear Science,” or “cmns” for short. The definitive history of this field, as of about 2006, can be found in the book, “The Secrets of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions “by Dr. Edmund Storms. A web site maintained by Dr. Ludvik Kowalski contains information which has developed since Storms’ book was written. (14)] Considering the electron and proton as vortex oscillators which can associate may give a clue as to why the Hadron Collider apparently has had difficulties. Vortex oscillators can not only associate with different vortexes, but also selfassociate. Electronelectron association has been long known. However, no one seems to have realized the same to be true for protons. Additionally, conventional science gives no hint of the possible existence in “vacuums” of pulsatoroscillators, e.g., the “Zerotron” mentioned previously, some of which may be separable into electrons and positrons and deformable into neutrons or even other neutronlike entities. Pushing a stream of mutually repulsive “Charged Particles” through a void, would be very different from trying to control vortexes, which can selfassociate, through a possiblyreactive medium. If the O/S Oscillator/Substanceview be correct, the Hadron Collider, when trying to accelerate protons might have been acting for a short time as a fusion reactor before feedback caused breakdowns. [If the “Zerotron” unit idea be valid, and, also, the idea that the neutron may result from shockwave distortion of this entity, then there is a possibility that the attempts to accelerate protons can cause shock wave effects in the SubstanceSubstrate, creating neutrons, this soon would be a source of electrons and additional protons. It is not too much of a stretch to see this situation resulting in the HH+ Hydrogen molecular cationwhich, very possibly can convert to the “He4+” unit, the Helium 4 Cation.... The overall effect would be a release of “Energy” into the system, from a very unexpected source. A system that was supposed to be absorbing “Energy” would instead be emitting it...] The basics of this “Framework” have been stated, and some implications have been covered. However, a few words about the start of the ideas leading to the O/S Model and the reasons for its quite different view from the conventional may be in order. This model started to develop quite innocently in the Spring of 2004 with the realization that basic ideas of Einstein’s Special Relativity fit into communication theory, where they would apply to any Perceptual Universe defined by a maximum, practical velocity of information transfer, whether that velocity be determined by Pony Express Riders or Electromagnetic Waves. (15) Since, in every case, practical maximum velocity of information transfer is going to be a bit less than the average speed of the packet carriers, the Speed of Light, is logically an average which acts as a practical maximum velocity of information transfer. This idea, also, would rise quite naturally from the use of the term, “Speed,” in the name, “Speed of Light,” as a “Speed” may be considered either as an average over time in a given direction of an number of velocity vectors, or an instantaneous “velocity” of undefined direction. A line of logic stemming from the above consideration led to two 2007 papers published on Helium com under the title, “Motion in a matrix as a new model of the physical universe.” (16, 17) These papers outlined the reasoning involved up to that time. These papers were the progenitors of the present theoretical form. It was later realized that the idea of a “Matrix.” as a true solid, would be an error and the model of the “Matrix” was modified to “A medium having the general characteristics of a substance at its triple point.” By the Summer of 2008, when the Oscillator/Substance Google Group was set up, followups on the initial insights noted above, had led to the realization that there was a “T.O.E.” available, as outlined at the start of this talk, which could have been seen a Century ago. Had the MichelsonMorley Experiment been reversed in interpretation from ruling out an “Aether,” to partially defining an Aether; and then, a few years later, Planck”s Constant had been considered a Constant of Angular Momentum and used to define characteristics , of that Aether, this model might well have come into existence 100 years ago. Equating Planck’s Constant,”h,” to its definition as an angular momentum and evaluating the resulting equation at the Speed of Light, “c.” leads to the equation, m x r = h/c = r x m., This arises from the fact that one definition of angular momentum states that angular momentum is the resultant of a mass, “m,” rotating at a radius, “r,” from a point, with a tangential velocity, “v.” As Planck’s Constant applies at the Speed of Light, it makes sense to evaluate at the speed of light and to simply by dividing out that speed from the left side of the equation to form a ratio constant, “h/c.” The resulting equation, m x r = h/c = r x m is an example of a common, very valuable relationship in physics, which occurs in the law of levers, the balance law used in weighing, the law of conservation of momentum, the law of conservation of energy.... Here, this relationship can be used to determine the oscillator limits for a family of constant torque oscillators, defined by the set, {m x r = h/c = r x m}, with a torque of h/c and inversion at the state where r = m = square root of h/c. In the cgs system, this value is about 4.7 x 10 ^19 grams at 4.7x 10^19 cm. This implies a hidden half of any basic oscillator which is smaller than 4.7 x 10 i^19 cm. Coming to the work of Michelson, Morley and Planck from a somewhat opposite view of the more standard theoretical approaches such as SpaceTime, Quantum Mechanics and String Theory, this model has a quite reversed orientation. As such, it asks for reexamination of many of the accepted percepts of modern physical theory. It may, however, turn out that this model will be complementary to much theory rather than contradictory. In its definition of Mass as a measure of the tensionpressure at a surface of the pointcentered motions within that surface, a characteristic of entities that is measured by comparison; and, in suggesting that the term, “Energy,” usually means a measurement of a package of motion which includes a point and its associated motions along a linea unit whose effects are usually observed as the results of collisionsthat is. “Kinetic Energy,” it appears that this model tends to focus on the “Mass” aspect, whereas most theoretical approaches focus on “Energy,” for the most part, and consider “Mass” as generally a constant value of some sort. There is far too much information developed from this modeland closely associated ideas which cling easily to it as a “Framework,” to cover in this short presentation. Therefore, I refer you to the website of the group previously mentioned, http://groups.google.com/group/oscillatorsubstancetheory. In this site most of the extant material has been collected as “pages,” which vary in size from a halfpage to 23 pages and counting. This model is called a "Framework,” by this writer who considers it as a simple start toward new construction. The model developed from a thought that communication should be consistent whether the information be carried by Pony Express Riders or Electromagnetic Waves. Since it almost “grew itself” essentially independent of consideration of other theoretical modelsit turns out to be definitely in contrast to many attitudes current in the scientific community. In fact, we might say that it is “usually anywhere from 90 to 180 degrees out of phase.” Here are some examples, some of which may not have been explicitly mentioned before. Where the standard view seems to be that what is needed is a theory to unify many diverse parts, this model takes the view that there is a "unity, a Substance/substrate of undefined extent and undefined basic unit." This idea might possibly be interpreted to mean, "There is a Fact of Existence which we may never be able to totally understand or define. Let us accept that and move on to what we can do.” Where the general consensus is that there is nothing in a "vacuum," this model postulates that there is an allpervasive substance, even in "vacuums" from which the vortex aggregates which we call "matter," have been removed. Where the usual view of electrons is as some sort of probability cloud, this model sees them as rotating, inverting, vortex oscillators....Similarly, reality of size and shape are given to other subatomic units. (The probability cloud idea arises from an average positioning of the electron as an entity in space, but is generally taken as a representation of the structure of the electron.) The conventional picture is that electrons and positrons combine to “annihilate,” converting totally to "electromagnetic radiation." This model says that they combine to another type of oscillator with dissipation of half of their total motion in the form of "radiation." Whereas, conventionally, "pairproduction" is some sort of a mysterious conversion of "Energy" into "particles" in the presence of matter in this model, pair production is simply the splitting of the "parent oscillator," when supplied with enough excess motion. That is, pairproduction is considered the reverse process of “annihilation.” Much of conventional physics theory is based on an idea similar to Einstein's supposed comment, "Mathematics is the reality." It is even assumed by many that if theoretical ideas are not expressed in differential equations, they have no validity. The view here is that mathematics is a tool, and that it is probably best to work with the simplest tools possible. This entire presentation has used nothing beyond grade school level, except for reference to Integration of the Momentum equation to form Energy equations. Where Mass and Energy seem generally accepted as being fundamental and interconvertible without truly defining eitherthis model defines both with respect to motions relative to points. (Mass is considered a measure of the tension/pressure at a surface, a measure of the motions concentrated about points within that surface. Energy specifically refers to Kinetic Energy, A measure of motion of an entitya surface having a center of massalong a vector. This is a value which is determined by velocity with respect to a point on that vector...) Where the "Unification of the Four Forces of Nature" is considered conventionally as a major theoretical problem, this model dismisses the situation by pointing out that none of the "Four Forces" meets the definition of a Force, whereas Pressure does. The problems of the "Missing Mass" of our Universe, Dark Energy, and some of the other related concepts may turn out to be due to several factors. One could be the semantic confusion between the use of the term, "Mass," as describing a "physical body," and "mass" as a scientific term describing an attribute of that body. This differentiation clearly shows in this model. Where, conventionally, there are many constants of nature, this model implies that there should be few, and those will be not absolute limits of any sort but are more likely to be statistical averages. Furthermore, combinations, multiples, and roots of "constants" are logically also "constants" which may furnish information. For instance, the square root of the speed of light, (c)^0.5, which is about 173 Kc/sec. (and 1.73 x 10 ^5 cm) may be a very interesting frequency as it is the value at which frequency and wave length will have the same "Absolute value." The use of the square root as two separate units which may have different titles but have the same “absolute values” is related to two short papers published on SciScoop. (18, 19) This model does not consider positive and negative charges as mysterious, accepted things of nature, but as manifestations of the rotation, inversion senses of vortex oscillators. As such, they are not constant values.... Where the Standard Model of Particle Physics originally considered the units found as results of atomsmashing experiments as being fundamental particles released by the experiments, this model would imply them to be different, alternative states of matter created in the experiments. That is, artifacts rather than fundamentals. This is by no means a conclusive listing of the differences in philosophy and attitude of this model from the more conventional situations. It is simply a listing of some of the differences that come immediately to this writer’s mind. In presenting this ”Framework,” this person is most certainly not asking that the ideas and information collected by all the workers who have contributed in the past be discarded, he is simply suggesting that this model may be a framework into which profitable reexamination of data and ideas may be fitted. This is a framework which appears, at least to this writer, to furnish a simpler, more easily understandable view of Existence than is currently available elsewhere. _________ References: 1. deanlsinclair, “Four Forces or One Substance?,” SciScoop.com 2. ibid. 3.deanlsinclair, Positron plus Negatron equals Zerotron?.SciScoop.com 4.Sinclair, Dean L.,, ON THE MATTER OF ANTIMATTER, What is hidden where? deanlsinclair.blogspot.com 5.Perricone, Mike, It might be...it could be...it is!!! Fermilab Press Release, Sept 25, 2006 6.Jamieson, Valerie, Flipping particle could explain missing antimatter, New Scientist, 18 March 2008 7.Overbye, Dennis , A New Clue to Explain Existence, The New York Times, May 17, 2010 8. Sinclair, Dean L., Antimatter, the basics. Helium.com 9. William Harrington, Charles William Johnson. and Dean L. Sinclair, private correspondence dealing with continuing work. 10, Sinclair, Dean L., Could protons be “reformed” antielectrons? Helium.com 11.deanlsinclair, Two Energy Expressions Interact? SciScoop.com 12.ibid 13._____________, Positronium, Wikipedia.org 14. Kowalski, Ludvik, Index to Cold Fusion Items, montclair.edu 15,Sinclair, Dean L.,Emulating Einstein in 2004, a privately circulated, 7 pg. report. 16.Sinclair, Dean L., Motion in a matrix as a new model of the physical universe. Helium,com .17. Vreeland, Hugh, Motion in a matrix as a new model of the physical universe.Helium,com 18.deanlsinclair, Roots and Directed Numbers, SciScoop.com., 19. deanlsinclair, Problems in MathematicsSigns and Signed Numbers, SciScoop.com , ________ Dean L. Sinclair, B.A., M.S., Ph.D. Dean L. Sinclair, Aberdeen, SD  USAOct 8, 2010 see more essay: Oscillator/Substance Model View of Elements and the Periodic Chart. Eski's Oscillator/Substance Group 20082011

Home  Books  Forum  Links  Author 