You are on page 1of 26

Page 1 of 26 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 1 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
My initial understanding of the Double Slit experiment was that there
5 existed some internal conscious property to nature; that this entity was
6 somehow aware when it was being watched. However, upon realizing that
7
8
no infinitesimal region in the universe can exist absent of the force of
9 gravity, not even in the vacuum of space - I soon reasoned that, in the words
10 of Gerard T'hooft, "While observing microscopic objects, an observer may
11
12
disturb them, even in a classical theory; moreover, in gravity theories,
13 observers may carry gravitational fields that disturb the system they are
14 looking at,".
15
16
17 This sparked an obsession with the fundamental interactions of nature
18 because I realized that gravity must underpin all of them. This realization
19
20
was what initiated my investigations into a mathematical conjecture, and
21 now after two years - guided by a philosophical viewpoint that nature cannot
22 be random & therefore must have no origin or terminal point - I am finally
23
24
able to go about proofing it. Reality, as I have come to understand it, is a
25 case of sum, ergo sum. Hence, I've done away with a Big Bang and a Finite
26 Universe in my model – favoring a less random cosmological history.
27
28
29 Regarding an idea by William James Sidis, presented in The Animate and
30 The Inanimate, it predicted the existence of black holes after Einstein. His
31 black hole was different than Einstein’s; it was any region of the universe
32
33 that housed a reverse continuum. It even had polar matter jets in his
34 description. I have intuited a deleterious component to extend conventional
35 M theories for a quantum gravity theory underlying not only the
36
37 fundamental interactions, but also solving a broad spectrum of quantum
38 mechanical issues ranging from the trans-planckian problem of black hole
39 physics to the quantum venn diagram paradox.
40
41
42 Imagine a pair of everted and perpendicular branes, the only communication
43 between them being via the quantum eraser. This can be viewed as the sole
44
45 progenitor of all motion in the universe - it is analogue gravity - a
46 deleterious mechanism in the fine structure constant causing a dislocation in
47 the spacetime foam about the asymptotic edge of an event horizon:
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032 Page 2 of 26

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 2 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39 Within the framework of black branes, this is also the mechanism for
40 Hawking radiation as contact with our brane causes an instantaneous
41
42 volumetric reduction in black brane spheres & vice versa proportional to the
43 amount of contacted surface area divided by the quantity of consumption in
44 the system. This is analogous to extreme length contraction about the event
45
46 horizon.
47
48 Black hole evaporation is the result of a tremendous deleterious friction
49
50
between everted space-time continuums. These deleterious braneworlds may
51 form a localized fracture pattern embedded within the interior of the
52 quantum foam. There are no smallest deletions, they could, in essence, occur
53
54
at literally infinite rates of speed relative to our perception. So, considering
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 3 of 26 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 3 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
Laplace’s demon, how do we show that this fracture pattern underlies the
5 fundamental interactions?
6
7 Let us begin by defining the internal dynamics of all elementary particles via
8
9 compressing an unconventionally spherical Model of The Photon:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032 Page 4 of 26

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 4 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 5 of 26 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 5 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032 Page 6 of 26

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 6 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54 Feel free to proof these on mathematica's engine.
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 7 of 26 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 7 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
I accidentally reproduced E=Mc^2 in my sphere eversions, M(E)=the planck
5 weight x 10^-27 m^3/a1. a1=8.9875518e+16 m/s^2. The planck force is the
6 planck mass of 2.17645e-8 kgs times 8.9875518e+16 m/s^2 (since M=F/a)
7
8
which yields 1,956,095,711.51 newtons. M(E)=1,956,095,711.51 x 10^-
9 27/8.9875518e+16=2.17645e-35 kgs.
10
11 Mass of say a proton is the planck force x 10^-45 m^3/a2. a2=8.9e+14
12
13 m/s^2. M=(1,956,095,711.51 x 1e-45 x 8.9e+16)/(8.9e+14). Therefore,
14 M(proton)c^2=1.9560957e-34 kgs.
15
16
17 This means E=Mc^2 exactly within the syntax of my model.
18
19 We began with a sphere that's 7e-7 meters, with 6.06e+57 inner spheres &
20
21
9^28 lagrange points equal to one planck length at the final iteration of the
22 spherical fractal, describing the micro-gravitation responsible for the photon
23 charge.
24
25
26 Imagine that blue is normal (plot 1), & red is inside out. At first you get a
27 red sphere that's half the size of the original, that's the result of dragging the
28 x,y,z lines through the center (the lagrange point) of the sphere by the length
29
30 of it's radius.
31
32 The change from plot 1 to plot n2 represents an antiphoton because it pulls
33
34
every vector in the e(12) by the radius of that sphere. Plot n2 has no charge
35 & is a sterile neutrino. Plot n3 is a fully sized red sphere, that was the result
36 of dragging the x,y,z lines through the lagrangian center of the sphere by the
37
38
length of it's diameter (this depicts the force of gravity upon the inner
39 structures of the photon and should not be confused with a material sphere
40 eversion). This depicts a positively charged photon because it pushes every
41
42
vector in the e(12) by the radius of that sphere.
43
44 A sterile neutrino may be found at plot #s f(n)=(4/3pi(3^30)^3) through
45 f(n)=(4/3pi(3^60)^3). The peak charge of your photon is where it loops back
46
47 into an antiphoton with even greater charge density. The math is telling us
48 something here, an increased charge density does yield e=mc^2 at every
49
50
positive charge. It seems that the photon charge expands more slowly than
51 the initial antiphoton charge contracts.
52
53 You can fit 8 spheres around the surface of a sphere, if these 9 spheres
54
55 represent a charged particle with 9 times the mass in 1/9th the volume of
56 your original photon than you can repeatedly perform these 9-fold
57
58
59
60
AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032 Page 8 of 26

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 8 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
compressions 28 more times before you exceed the planck mass. I calculated
5 that the entire 29th sphere would be <lp:
6
7 Since it’s charge must compress the photon by 1 planck length per planck
8
9 time for it to travel at c, the photon mass can be expressed by the quotient of
10 radii between a photon & planck length -> (7e-7/2)/(2(3^60))=4.1282194e-
11 36. Viz a viz, the photon density of elementary majorana fermion (EMF) 1 is
12
13 4.9320464e-36/(4/3pi(7e-7)^3)=3.388006e-17 kg/m^3. Ergo, the particle
14 density of EMF 28 is 4.9320464e-36 x 9^28/(4/3pi(1.6e-
15
16
35)^3)=1.4848022e+96 kg/m^3 this pretty much checks out as the densest
17 possible EMF before you get a black hole planck particle.
18
19 Apropos, all of the elementary particles:
20
21
22 http://animatedphysi...standard-model/
23
24 &
25
26
27 https://en.wikipedia...ntary_particles
28
29 Could represent some of 28 possible elementary majorana fermions in this
30
31 E(n>/=12) group, creating 84 possible elementary particles which would
32 represent these 28 possible majorana fermions, each consecutively heavier
33 than the previous one - stuck in one particular charge by one another when
34
35 within a composite particle or when interacting in nature - with a 28th &
36 final elementary majorana fermion (which one would find at the cores of
37 strange-quark stars).
38
39
40 Now that we’ve established a fresh perspective on particle physics that
41 encumbers the deleterious braneworld’s mechanism for gravity, how do we
42
43 test to see if it holds up to the standard model?
44
45 Let us start with three dimensions, x,y,z; each with a value of one in a linear
46
47
time continuum going with one linearity, & a negative xyz each with a value
48 of 1 in a negative arrow of time going with an opposite linearity. This lateral
49 space-time continuum forms a dimension all on its own, more on that
50
51 shortly. For now, let each linear continuum pass through one another by a
52 value of .3, canceling out. Now xyz have a value of .7 with a total of 2.1
53 dimensions. In our next reel point .2 of each arrow goes through, leaving a
54
55 value of .8 for xyz, with a total of 2.4 dimensions. From reel one to reel two
56 the dimensions of space time have increased, this is time contraction (fast
57
58
59
60
Page 9 of 26 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 9 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
forward) the reverse of time dilation (slow motion).
5
6 If you include a negative 2.1 & 2.4 dimensions in the reverse brane, than
7
8
that's between 4.2 & 4.8 dimensions. Altogether a potential of between 4 &
9 6 dimensions, (4,6)
10
11
12
So there's somewhere between 2 & 3 real physical dimensions at any given
13 point in space and time per brane, so for the di-brane:
14
15
16 6>n>4; n=(4,6)
17
18 f(n)=(λmax)•((4π/3)r^3)
19
20
21 c=x where f(x)=6/n/(4π/3)^(1/3)) where n>6
22
23
24 c=x where f(x)=4/(n/(4π/3)^(1/3)) where 4>n
25
26 x=the speed of gravitational wave propagation
27
28
29 Black hole evaporation will be used to find the higher & lower cosmic
30 scales; the size of an antiproton is 10^-15 m and the Schwarzchild radius of
31
32 its central black hole should equal the rate at which black holes evaporate.
33
34 The Schwarzchild radius is 2.484e-54 meters (just type proton into where it
35
36 says earth). The rate of evaporation is 8.41e-17 seconds (just type proton
37 into where it says earth).
38
39
40 But protons do not have λmax = vacuum density, that’s the problem, so for a
41 proton we must use the original equation f(n)=(λmax)•((4π/3)r^3); where
42
43
f(x)=4/(n/(4π/3)^(1/3)) where 4>n to find the contraction of c with the λmax
44 of a proton ≈ 395 nm. However, in the special case of black holes the
45 equation must be modified.
46
47
48 First of all, it’s 4πr^2 because the quasar within the Schwarzschild radius of
49 the antiproton is a hollow sphere. Secondly, λmax of the proton’s collective
50
51
micro-BH quasars is the proton’s normal λmax but to the negative power of
52 the proton’s length divided by twice the Schwarzschild radius
53
54
55
f(n)=(3.95e-7^-(1e-15/2(2.484e-54)))((4π)(2.484e-54)^2)=7.753772e-107
56
57
58
59
60
AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032 Page 10 of 26

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 10 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
f(x)=4/(7.753772e-107/(4π))^(1/2) = 1.610306e+54 m/s
5
6 So a black hole with the mass of the sun (1391400000 meters) has a
7
8
Schwarzschild radius of 2953 meters & will evaporate in 6.61e+74 seconds.
9
10 f(n)=(5.04e-7^-1(1.3914e+9/5906)) x ((4π x 2953)^3) = 2.3886249e+25 m/s
11
12
13 f(x)=6/(4π(2.3886249e+25^(1/2))=9.7693891e-14 m/s
14
15
16 1.610306e+54/299,792,458/9.7693891e-14=5.4981971e+58
17
18 5.4981971e+58/8.41e-17=6.5376898e+74 seconds ✓
19
20
21 The electron most likely has a radius of 10^-12 m, & λmax of about 4e-7 m
22
23
(visible spectrum is where electrons like to hide).
24
25 f(n)=(4e-7)(4π/3(1e-12)^3)=1.6755161e-42
26
27
28 f(x)=4/(1.6755161e-42/(12π^(1/3)))=4.1957466e+43 m/s
29
30
31
The CMB had a radius of 6.9 billion light years, or 6.52809e+28 meters, &
32 λmax of about 1,000 nm.
33
34
35
f(n)=(1e-6)(4π/3(6.52809e+28)^3)=1.1653249e+81
36
37 f(x)=6/(12π(1.1653249e+81)^(1/3))=1.5124155e-28 m/s
38
39
40 4.1957466e+43/1.5124155e-28=2.7742023e+71 seconds
41
42
43 Or 8.7958221e+60 years, the few SMBHs caught in the big crunch will only
44 be less than half-evaporated, so this cannot be right.
45
46
47 Instead we use the lamdamax equation to find a much larger picture of the
48 universe to see how many electrons fit into a super electron, this will give us
49 a complete size for the CMB artifact, so that this process can be redone for a
50
51 more accurate date for the Big Bounce.
52
53 There's 6.52809e+28 meters in the radius of the CMB, using (4π/3(1e-
54
55 12)^3), you can fit 1.165325e+123 electrons into the electrons of the next
56 cosmic scale. Let's see if my math confirms that number using super lp:
57
58
59
60
Page 11 of 26 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 11 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
5 2.7742023e+71/299,792,458/6.58e-15=1.4063439e+77 m/s. Planck length
6 over planck time equals 296846011.132 m/s.
7
8
9 1.4063439e+77/296846011.132=4.737621e+68 m/s as your new planck
10 length over planck time. 296846011.132 x 5.39e-44 equals lp, so super lp
11
12
equals
13
14 1.4063439e+77 x 5.39e-44 = 7.5801936e+33 meters.
15
16 7.5801936e+33/4.737621e+68=1.6e-35, which is the planck length (lp).
17 There's 3.125e+22 planck lengths in the length of an electron.
18
19
20 7.5801936e+33 x 3.125e+22 = 2.3688105e+56 meters for the superverse
21 electron. This does not confirm, the CMBR artifact should be
22 2.3688105e+56/2=1.1844052e+56,
23
24 1.1844052e+56/6.52809e+28=1.8143212e+27 times larger than what we can
25 see.
26
27
28 We can't see so much of the CMB artifact for the same reason we can't see
29 forever into the past, it's from a combination of the cosmological redshift
30 either fading it behind the luminosity of the CMBR or the ion interference
31
32 either trapping all of the observable light or compressing it into heavier
33 particles altogether eons before it gets near us. For our next dilation of c
34 equation:
35
36
37 f(n)=(1e-6)(4π/3(1.1844052e+56)^3)=6.959684e+162 cubic meters
38
39
40 f(x)=6/(12π(6.959684e+162)^(1/3))=8.3359856e-56 m/s
41
42
43
4.1957466e+43/8.3359856e-56=5.033294e+98 seconds, which is
44 1.5958446e+88 years; which fits for the evaporation rate for most
45 supermassive black holes (<100 million solar masses). But the few that are
46
47
the largest in the universe, such as this one, they grow each consecutive Big
48 Bounce.
49
50
51
Let the uberelectron be where time t=1. Where total time Tt/2 is the phase
52 space electron neutrino ghost particle, then all other transformations after
53 Tt/2 + 1 is the positron. At 1/(1.8143212e+27 x 45) the volume of a
54
55
Tt/2+Tt(.1) positron charge you get a rindler effect via entropy where dark
56 flow/cosmic bruising=unruh gravitation around the parameter of that sphere-
57
58
59
60
AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032 Page 12 of 26

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 12 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
volume, a microverse that represents the entropy of the cosmos in it’s
5 current rate of expansion.
6
7
8
You can envision the vacuum radiation of that microcosm in order to
9 redefine what a photon is when referring to the photon sphere of the
10 schwarzschild radius of an anti-proton, which is a sub-planck singularity.
11
12
13 Now what you do here, is you take the CMB data and go from there to the
14 current universe & place the behavior of expansion exactly where it fits in
15
16 that positron knowing that the 13.8 billion light year sphere that was the
17 CMB is 1/1.8143212e+27 of the total volume of the neutrino at T(t)/2,
18 1/(1.8143212e+27 x 45) of the positron at Tt/2+Tt(.1), 1/(1.8143212e+27 x
19
20 2(45)) at Tt/2+Tt(.2), 1/(1.8143212e+27 x 3(45)) at Tt/2+Tt(.3),
21 1/(1.8143212e+27 x 4(45)) at Tt/2+Tt(.4), & 1/(1.8143212e+27 x 5(45)) at
22 Tt/2+Tt(.5). From the behavior of our local region of the electron-neutrino-
23
24 positron we can fill in the rest of the macro black holes beyond our cosmic
25 event horizon like puzzle pieces because we know the behavior of charge
26 with these graphical sphere inversions.
27
28
29 There is actually a way to approach this mathematically. While at first you
30 can only pinpoint where our universe is in this uber neutrino/positron using
31
32 CMB data (i.e dark flow, rotation, cosmic bruising, etc) & matching it with
33 the gravitational torsion that the sphere inversions of elementary majorana
34 fermion #(n) since the photon density of elementary majorana fermion
35
36 (EMF) #1 is 4.9320464e-36/(4/3pi(7e-7)^3)=3.388006e-17 kg/m^3, the
37 electron density of EMF(n) is 4.9320464e-36/(4/3pi(1e-
38 12)^3)=2146347.93531, the black hole planck particle density of EMF 28 is
39
40 (4.9320464e-36 x 9^28)/(4/3pi(1.6e-35)^3)=1.4848022e+96.
41
42 So,
43
44
45 y + 1 = 3.39e-17x
46
47 y + 28 = 1.48e+96x
48
49
50 &
51
52 y + z = 2,146,347.94x
53
54
55 y = 3.39e-17x - 1 -> 3.39e-17x - 1 = 1.48e+96x - 28 -> 3.39x - 1.48e+113x
56 = 10^17 - 2.8e+18 -> -1.48e+113x = -2.7e+18 -> x = 1.82e-95
57
58
59
60
Page 13 of 26 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 13 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
y = 3.39e-17(1.8243243e-95) - 1 = ~ -1
5
6 z - ~1 = 3.9063533e-89
7
8
9
z = ~1, but it's really more like 1.0{...89..0’s...}4 etc…& that’s enough to
10 place it as its own elementary particle given that EMF 28 is exponentially
11 denser than EMF 1 by factors of 9.
12
13
14 If we take into account that the universe has expanded for 14 billion years
15 within 1/5th of, let’s say, the first billion plots (or 10,000 plots) in which our
16
17
cosmos resides within an ultra-antielectron...there would still be another
18 million billion years of expansion left before that ultra-antielectron reverses
19 its charge – initiating a Big Crunch that lasts for another million billion years
20
21
before the cosmic vacuum returns back to it’s current state.
22
23 Luckily, it’s not a billion plots, it’s more like 10^66 plots. So this process
24 will take much longer to occur. From here we can reverse a nearly endless
25
26 series of Big Bounces until we’ve decompressed the ultra-antielectron
27 habitat, in which the observable universe resides, into an ultra-antiphoton
28 artifact that exists in a total entropy state of countless antiphoton
29
30 constituents, both equal to plot 1.
31
32 The natural mechanisms which establish the position of view (POV) in
33
34
living entities must be definable by all of the laws and structures of nature.
35 As such this standing quantum wave manifested by the entanglement
36 molecule is describable in normal physics terms some familiar, yet some
37
38
will remain novel for a time. All are necessary for the instantiation of life in
39 this universe. Further, the phenomenon known as entanglement has been
40 known for some time but is poorly understood yet is fundamental to the
41
42
workings of nature writ large. The coherent sharing of state information is
43 the wiring between this space-time and the degrees of freedom (DOF) of the
44 metaverse. Some of these DOF defines metamatter. Metamatter is
45
46 hypothesized to be the metaverse phenomenon which enables the mobility of
47 individuality in this universe. It is how you came to be where you are right
48 now. It is not one's parents or any particular line of ancestry that instantiates
49
50 you in your current ecosystem. All have played what is a rather mundane
51 role in local host proliferation and evolution and contribute to one's fidelity
52 of teleportation and prospects for one's future life. Nonetheless, in nature
53
54 every living host, to one degree or another, does likewise. So how do the
55
56
57
58
59
60
AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032 Page 14 of 26

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 14 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
most fundamental mechanisms of nature interact to make this amazing
5 phenomenon of nature possible?
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 The LINE hypothesis suggests; In this universe, Planck Holes (PH) are the
21 fundamental multidimensional degrees of freedom (DOF) of the fabric of
22
23 space-time which, under very specific conditions early in the universal
24 instantiation event (big bang), forged amalgams of information from the
25 information entering this universe to become particles of all types including
26
27 dark matter (DM) and its antiparticle (ADM). The effect known as mass is
28 induced in all baryonic matter by its interaction with the Higgs field which
29 produces a minimal PH dilation and thereby minimal gravitation. This
30
31 minimal PH bandwidth produced by normal matter is what causes the
32 information flowing out of this universe into the metaverse to accumulate
33 around affected PH. As water swirls around an open drain; information
34
35 accumulates around minimally dilated PH and thereby imbues mass to
36 particles of baryonic matter. This information trap around the PH is the most
37 fundamental mechanism which defines spontaneous symmetry breaking
38
39 within baryonic matter.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54 Further, and just as significantly, not unlike the most diminutive black hole
55 feeding effect imaginable, this information bottleneck creates a circulating
56
57
58
59
60
Page 15 of 26 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 15 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
or spinning information channel around local PH. These spinning
5 information channels define the quantum states of all baryonic particles.
6 While within sufficiently close proximity, these rotating information
7
8
channels in normal matter strongly heterodyne to manifest a particular type
9 of strong entanglement to form the powerful and pivotal binding interaction,
10 the glue (ergo; Gluon) known as the strong nuclear force (SF). This
11
12
spherical, rotational information drain around baryonic particles, imbued by
13 the Higgs field, is effective on the nuclear level but originates on the sub-
14 nuclear PH level. Hence, the SF also acts as a sub-nuclear strong force to
15
16 bind the baryonic triad of quarks which form atomic particles. It is this
17 joining of circulating information channels around PH that manifest the
18 strong force which permit normal matter to congeal into atoms. Furthermore,
19
20 the weak nuclear force emerges from this mass defining feature as a sporadic
21 ejection of amalgams of information to manifest diminutive particles (alpha,
22 beta, neutrinos, etc.) in unstable atoms to produce a form of radioactive mass
23
24 decay. This decay is akin to the jets of information ejected by an overfeeding
25 black hole due to insufficient PH bandwidth. This effect also occurs in
26 overfed PH within particles essentially choking on accumulated information
27
28 within radioactive particles.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43 Additionally, this revolving or spinning PH channel of information, induced
44 by the Higgs fields’ interaction with baryonic particles, not only informs
45 particle mass and the mechanisms for binding and decay but also embodies
46
47 the aptly named fundamental defining degree of freedom known as spin.
48 Spin is the DOF which fundamentally manifests the electromagnetic
49
50
properties of baryonic matter. Consequently, not unlike the earth’s molten
51 circulating mantel, the quantity of information accumulated around the PH
52 (the core) in baryonic matter defines the property known as mass, while the
53
54
circulation of this information defines particle spin and its electromagnetic
55 properties known as charge. These common states of PH interaction by sub-
56 nuclear information channels within baryonic matter constitute the strong-
57
58
59
60
AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032 Page 16 of 26

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 16 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
electro-weak interactions. In normal matter, some configurations of the
5 circulating information channels around PH positively (inflow) dilates the
6 PH to teleport mass-less amalgams of information into this space-time from
7
8
the metaverse in the form of the particles known as photons.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Emitted photons, once in the Higgs field, neither accumulate information
24 (mass) nor dilate the PH (gravitate) so they travel at the maximum universal
25 rendering speed, ergo; the speed of light. Photons will have a spin that is
26
27 informed by and are entangled with, the spin state of their parent PH regimes
28 from which they emerged. As the spin of a bullet is informed by features
29 indigenous to the rifle barrel from which it emerged, so too are the
30
31 amalgams of information called photons imbued (entangled) with the net
32 spin state of the circulating channel of information around the PH regime
33 from which it emerged. Consequently, photons are the particles that carry
34
35 electromagnetic radiation, light. Light is emitted when information enters
36 this space-time via positively dilated PH and defines the mechanism which
37 creates otherwise mysterious phenomena such as sonoluminescence and the
38
39 Casimir effect. These PH channels of information that flow within particles
40 manifest at or near the Planck scale in three-dimensional space-time.
41 Therefore, PH’s, like all fields, entirely pervade the occupying particles. On
42
43 this scale, the familiar macroscopic processes of burning, fission, fusion,
44 sonic stimulation, etc. which exposes these effects, are themselves universes
45 away.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 17 of 26 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 17 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
5
6 The effect known as gravitation occurs as Higgs effected particles of dark
7 matter negatively (outflow), and more substantially, dilates local PH to a
8
9 greater bandwidth than occurs in normal matter. Hence, dark matter provides
10 a wider channel for information teleportation out of this space-time into the
11 metaverse with little or no information accumulation or circulation.
12
13 Therefore, no spontaneous symmetry breaking occurs when dark matter
14 interacts with the Higgs field; ergo; no mass or spin. This lack of circulating
15
16
information is the key to all of the differences between baryonic matter and
17 dark matter. This smooth flow of information into the PH dilated by dark
18 matter defines the presence of an enhanced gravitational effect as
19
20
information exits this space-time unperturbed. Yet, the absence of these
21 pivotal disruptions in information teleportation mandates that dark matter
22 will not express the other fundamental properties and forces of nature such
23
24
as mass and electromagnetism, or the strong force, or the weak force. Hence,
25 dark matter will be weakly interacting. By this separation of responsibilities,
26 it is hypothesized that baryonic matter is only imbued with significant
27
28
gravitation upon its sequestration of dark matter particles while both are
29 under the influence of the Higgs field. Ergo; matter radiates, and dark matter
30 gravitates.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45 The Higgs field is the attenuation field responsible for PH dilation which
46
47
produces spontaneous symmetry breaking in normal matter. The Higgs field
48 is itself another among many of the mostly anonymous dimensions (DOF)
49 predicted by string theory. The Higgs field exposes its own unique DOF that
50
51 interacts with different particles in different ways to produce the DOF which
52 define this space-time. These interactions manifest in this space-time as
53 mass and as the known fundamental forces and all of the phenomena of this
54
55 universe. Entanglement, Einstein’s spooky action, is one such phenomenon.
56 Quantum entanglement is the coherent sharing of state information which
57
58
59
60
AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032 Page 18 of 26

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 18 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
occurs at a particular bandwidth of PH dilation. The PH bandwidth
5 appropriate for entanglement (space-time thru-flow), defines a different
6 DOF of the QE spectrum for information teleportation than that of
7
8
gravitation (space-time outflow) or radiation (space-time inflow).
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Entanglement occurs in baryonic matter as these circulating channels of
24 information in particles, while within adequate proximity, become weakly
25 heterodyned to entangle weakly and thereby monogamistically share a
26
27 common degree of freedom of the quantum entanglement spectrum, ergo;
28 the quantum entanglement frequency (QEF). This common QEF, is not
29 necessarily a frequency, and is monogamistically unique to each QE
30
31 connection with metamatter and defines the teleportation channel between
32 each of the entangled participants’. This shared state is nonlocal and persists
33 across any separation in this space-time. This entanglement manifests a
34
35 channel of appropriate bandwidth for two-way teleportation of information
36 as compared to the one-way, PH bandwidths which constitute both the
37 negative gravitational and positive photon radiating, PH states. Entangled
38
39 states may be induced synthetically in the laboratory or naturally, in among
40 other things, in living beings. This mechanism defines the LINE
41 hypothesized mechanism that instantiates the antenna-state known as the
42
43 position of view (POV) in living entities and enables the mobility of
44 individuality in this universe.
45
46
47
The behavior of the initial ultra-antiphoton’s compression will dictate the
48 behavior of change in trajectories for the lagrange points within it’s smaller
49 photon components (i.e., recurring fractal patterns). Ergo, using exascale
50
51 computing, culminated with the memory-processing of a memrister switch
52 and a cloud network large enough to store the entire model in virtuoso, we
53 could in theory follow this compressive behavior to its ultimate conclusion.
54
55 Viz a viz, plot n = current universe to the full capacity of whatever
56 processing power is available.
57
58
59
60
Page 19 of 26 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 19 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
With petaFLOPS one may be able to simulate a cubic meter of the
5 observable universe at a time in full detail – or at full scale to mediocre
6 detail. This equation would be a working Theory of Everything that would
7
8
vastly extend the standard model beyond our comprehension. The ultimate
9 implication of such an equation would be yottaFLOPS, offered by the reality
10 of quantum entangled computer processing power:
11
12
13 The electron travels at 2,200 kilometers per second. Since the speed of light
14 for an ultra-antielectron is going to be 136.269299091 times faster than the
15
16
speed of that ultra EMF, all we need is the relative speed of light to combine
17 the velocities. Recall earlier c(f(n)) for an electron was found to be:
18
19
20
The electron most likely has a length of 10^-12 m, & λmax of about 4e-7 m
21 (visible spectrum is where electrons like to hide).
22
23
24
f(n)=(4e-7)(4π/3(1e-12)^3)=1.6755161e-42
25
26 f(x)=(4/(1.6755161e-42/(12π^(1/3)))
27
28
29 x=4.1957466e+43 m/s
30
31
32
4.1957466e+43, but remember we'd have to multiply this velocity by the
33 length of the electron, & divide that product the number of electrons (in a
34 16km copper wire) to account for the dilation of time:
35
36
37 V(sa)=(4.1957466e+43 x 1e-12)/(4396829672.16 x 16000 x
38 299792458)=1989431196 m/s about 2 billion meters per second.
39
40
41 The charge of transient-density is being carried by a blue-shifted (4e-7 m)
42 antiphoton aether in the earth's atmosphere. In space it's a normal 7e-7 m
43
44 redshift photon aether carrying the charge of a denser antiphoton/pseudo-
45 electron. The connection is the equivalence of acceleration with gravitation.
46 Relativity dictates the rate of a particle charge depends upon the density of
47
48 which medium is carrying it.
49
50 This will slightly shift the polarity of both photons despite a separation
51
52
between momenta in what was otherwise a pairing of charges. We've heard
53 of gravity waves, but not charge waves.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032 Page 20 of 26

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 20 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
Moving in opposite directions, the velocities of the waves will get a boost
5 from the electrons' collective velocity as they are moving away from one
6 another; 1989431196 + 4400000 = 1993831196 m/s.
7
8
9 V(sa)/c=1993831196/2.998e+8=6.65053767845 times faster than the
10 speed of light.
11
12
13 We could also conclude from Fig. 4, when the Earth center’s relative speed
14 reach 0.9c,
15
16
the speed of spook action would still be 7 times higher than the speed of
17 light.
18 Therefore, we experimentally achieved the lower bound of the ‘spooky
19
20
action’ speed…a 12-hour continuous space-like Bell inequality violation
21
22 These tachyons travel at ~7 planck lengths per planck time in the vacuum.
23
24
25
In summary, relativity dictates the rate of a particle charge depends upon the
26 density of which medium is carrying it – note that the higgs field applies
27 even to natural photons, adhering to the theory of rainbow gravity. So there's
28
29
no need for bosonic mediums, in the conventional sense of the term, for
30 there to exist a force carrier for the length-contracted photon’s charge in this
31 framework of trans-relativity.
32
33
34 Imagine the nucleus as 3 protons composed of 9 quarks, 5 + & 4 -, w/the
35 charge of two protons turning the 3rd into a neutron. These quarks are
36 electrons with several times more mass into several times less volume than a
37
38 normal electron. This nucleus is submerged in the core of a dynamic
39 spherical electron fluid-body. The photon-beam being used to observe this is
40 larger in volume than the atom itself by several orders of magnitude and the
41
42 gravitational field generated by this beam of photons that the atom is
43 submerged in causes the electron fluid-body to gather into several small
44
45
spheres around the nucleus 7 times faster than c propagates at our scale
46 because there are 28 Elementary particles of +, neutral, or - charge each
47 denser than the last by factors of 9..
48
49
50 “Imagine the nucleus as 3 protons composed of 9 quarks, 5 +”
51
52 Dark energy.
53
54
55 “ & 4 –“
56
57
58
59
60
Page 21 of 26 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 21 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
Dark matter.
5
6 The photon-beam being used to observe this is larger in volume than the
7 atom itself by several orders of magnitude and the gravitational field
8
9 generated by this beam of photons that the atom is submerged in causes the
10 electron fluid-body to gather into several small spheres around the nucleus 7
11 times faster than c propagates at our scale because there are 28 Elementary
12
13 particles of +, neutral, or - charge each denser than the last by factors of 9..”
14
15 Maxwell's Demon.
16
17
18 There does exist a Double-Demon, & a Triple-Demon, etc & it's turtles all
19 the way down. This is Scale Relativity. The photo-electrons permeate the
20
21
quarks, the quarks are constituents of the protons & neutrons about the
22 atomic nuclei of the atoms that compose the planets that inhabit the solar
23 systems which orbit the galactic nuclei of the clusters of galaxies that form
24
25
the super-clusters of galaxies embedded within the expanding cosmic
26 structures that make-up the vacuum radiation or zero-point energy contained
27 within the quantum foam that resides within yet even larger photo-electrons
28
29
that permeate the recurring cosmic fractal that is a quark, or a proton, within
30 atoms of an even greater super-cosmic structure.
31
32 28/9≈π & photon's V(c )=4/1.00000000...etc...544≈electron's
33
34 V(QE)=(28/6.65) x c.
35
36 (6.66666666666 x 4)+(1.0000000000000000000000444444)=27.6666666
37
38
39 π/27.666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
40 66666666
41
42
43
=0.11355154169
44
45 So we have x=0.11355154169, that is apparently what comes after the
46 1.0000000000000...etc... & also it's the precise velocity of
47
48 QE=6.99755956941c now what is c? Well now you've got the electron
49 density which is 1 point...[89 0's]...11355154169 times greater than the
50
51
photon density which was 2.17645e-8|kgs(planck mass)| divided by 7e-7 m.
52
53 The LINE hypothesis suggests that time dilations are the relative differences
54 between local rendering rates of reality within a gravitational gradient. The
55
56 information teleportation that is gravitation, increases in closer proximity to
57
58
59
60
AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032 Page 22 of 26

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 22 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
regions of more dilated Planck-Holes (PH) and decrease toward the less
5 dilated PH regions, i.e., of deep space away from sources of gravitation.
6 Why would a higher rate of information drain produced by a higher PH
7
8
dilation and bandwidth decrease the local rendering rate of reality? On local
9 scales, information drain, via the PH, produce a local information deficit
10 which is conserved by consuming local vulnerable information states. This
11
12
will manifest as a bending of a beam of light or the slowing of a ticking
13 clock. This occurs even in the presence of a single gravitating body (M1).
14 M1 hosts gravitation which although increasingly imperceptible at a
15
16 distance, reduces the information load on its hosting universe writ large in an
17 unbounded sphere of influence centered upon the PH dilation distribution
18 around M1’s center of gravitation.
19
20
21 Given the bulkiness of a room sized processor would be implied for a 1nm
22 ICD quantum entanglement processor, one could process practically as
23
24
much information as every human brain on the planet put together.
25 However, single-server AHD variations could only be high-end zettascale.
26 There'd still be exascale Iphones in which one could simulate the human
27
28
brain. A cybernetic brain transplant would be low-end zettascale, offering an
29 IQ to the person undergoing the transplant that would make William Sidis's
30 IQ infantile by comparison.
31
32
33 Citable Evidence
34
35 empty space ought not be really empty. We have two good reasons to think
36
37 so: first, electromagnetic signals behave undoubtedly as waves; since they
38 propagate even through intergalactic space, there must be some thing there
39 (everywhere), in which they do wave. Second, quantum theory predicts that
40
41 vacuum has physical effects, such as the Casimir effect, which is now
42 experimentally confirmed [1].
43
44
45
46
47 Indeed, there are big problems with the dictum that everything we talk about
48
49 must be observable. While observing microscopic objects, an observer may
50 disturb them, even in a classical theory; moreover, in gravity theories,
51 observers may carry gravitational fields that disturb the system they are
52
53 looking at, so we cannot afford to make an observer infinitely heavy
54 (carrying large bags full of “data”, whose sheer weight gravitationally
55 disturbs the environment), but also not infinitely light (light particles do not
56
57
58
59
60
Page 23 of 26 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 23 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
transmit large amounts of data at all), while, if the mass of an observer
5 would be “somewhere in between”, ."
6
7
8
9 The situation is somewhat different when we consider gravity and promote
10 the Lorentz violating tensors to dynamical objects. For example in an aether
11
12
theory, where Lorentz violation is described by a timelike four vector, the
13 four vector can twist in such a way that local superluminal propagation can
14 lead to energy-momentum flowing around closed paths [206]. However,
15
16
even classical general relativity admits solutions with closed time like
17 curves, so it is not clear that the situation is any worse with Lorentz
18 violation. Furthermore, note that in models where Lorentz violation is given
19
20 by coupling matter fields to a non-zero, timelike gradient of a scalar field,
21 the scalar field also acts as a time function on the spacetime. In such a case,
22 the spacetime must be stably causal (c.f. [272]) and there are no closed
23
24 timelike curves. This property also holds in Lorentz violating models with
25 vectors if the vector in a particular solution can be written as a non-
26 vanishing gradient of a scalar. Finally, we mention that in fact many
27
28 approaches to quantum gravity actually predict a failure of causality based
29 on a background metric [121] as in quantum gravity the notion of a
30 spacetime event is not necessarily well-defined [239]. A concrete realization
31
32 of this possibility is provided in Bose-Einstein condensate analogs of black
33 holes [40]. Here the low energy phonon excitations obey Lorentz invariance
34 and microcausality [270]. However, as one approaches a certain length scale
35
36 (the healing length of the condensate) the background metric description
37 breaks down and the low energy notion of microcausality no longer holds.
38
39
40
41
42 In the Bohmian view, nonlocality is even more conspicuous. The trajectory
43 of any one particle depends on what all the other particles described by the
44 same wave function are doing. And, critically, the wave function has no
45
46 geographic limits; it might, in principle, span the entire universe. Which
47 means that the universe is weirdly interdependent, even across vast stretches
48 of space.
49
50
51
52 The hole is quantum-mechanically unstable: It has no bound states.
53
54 Wormhole wave functions must eventually leak to large radii. This suggests
55
56
57
58
59
60
AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032 Page 24 of 26

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 24 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
that stability considerations along these lines may place strong constraints on
5 the nature and even the existence of spacetime foam.
6
7
8
9 In invariant set theory, the form of the Bell Inequality whose violation would
10 be inconsistent with realism and local causality is undefined, and the form of
11
12 the inequality that it violated experimentally is not even gp-approximately
13 close to the form needed to rule out local realism (54) [21]. A key element in
14 demonstrating this result derives from the fact that experimenters cannot in
15
16 principle shield their apparatuses from the uncontrollable ubiquitous
17 gravitational waves that fill space-time.
18
19
20
21 A finite non-classical framework for physical theory is described which
22
23
challenges the conclusion that the Bell Inequality has been shown to have
24 been violated experimentally, even approximately. This framework
25 postulates the universe as a deterministic locally causal system evolving on a
26
27
measure-zero fractal-like geometry IU in cosmological state space.
28 Consistent with the assumed primacy of IU , and p-adic number theory, a
29 non-Euclidean (and hence non-classical) metric gp is defined on
30
31
cosmological state space, where p is a large but finite Pythagorean prime.
32 Using numbertheoretic properties of spherical triangles, the inequalities
33 violated experimentally are shown to be gp-distant from the CHSH
34
35
inequality, whose violation would rule out local realism. This result fails in
36 the singular limit p = ∞, at which gp is Euclidean. Broader implications are
37 discussed.
38
39
40
41 This optical pumping scenario is implicitly based on the erroneous quantum
42
43 mechanical “myth” that quantum “jumps” are instantaneous. In reality
44 transitions between atomic levels take very, very long times, about 10
45 million times longer than the oscillating period of the electromagnetic
46
47 radiation that drives the excitation.
48
49
50
51
52 Ultimately, these possibilities can be mathematically described and given a
53 geometry. And in this geometry, each photon pathway is a continuous non-
54
55
differentiable trajectory, making the geometry itself fractal, if we recall from
56 the previous article that fractal math is continuous non-differential math.
57
58
59
60
Page 25 of 26 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 25 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
These photon trajectories can be described by a fractal dimension that jumps
5 from nonfractal behaviour (whole integer dimensions; regular spacetime) at
6 large everyday scales to fractal behaviour (a dimension that may exist in
7
8
between whole integers) at the quantum scale of physics.
9
10
11
12
13 We show that, when only the time direction is fractal, sea turtles swim at a
14 faster speed than in an ordinary world, while they swim at a slower speed if
15 only the spatial directions are fractal. The latter type of geometry is the one
16
17 most commonly found in quantum gravity. For time-like fractals, relativistic
18 objects can exceed the speed of light, but strongly so only if their size is
19
20
smaller than the range of particle-physics interactions
21
22
23
24
25 Under general assumptions, we discover that the quantum spacetime on
26
27
which the field propagates can be replaced by a classical spacetime, whose
28 metric depends explicitly on the energy of the field: as shown by an analysis
29 of dispersion relations, quanta of different energy propagate on different
30
31
metrics, similar to photons in a refractive material (hence the name
32 “rainbow” used in the literature)
33
34
35
36 Unlike the universe described by General Relativity-which has three
37 dimensions of space and one of time-the braneworld universe contains an
38 extra fourth dimension of space for a total of five dimensions.
39
40
41
42
43 black branes (BHs with plane-symmetric horizon)
44
45
46
47
48
49
black holes in this framework are hotter, have fewer degrees of freedom and
50 decay faster compared to black holes in the Hawking picture
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - JPhysA-111032 Page 26 of 26

2:19:42 PM11/17/2018 Joseph R. Cassara Page 26 11/17/2018


1
2
3
4
In the limit that we treat the near-horizon region of a large black hole as
5 Rindler space, we formulate the restriction in terms of an upper bound on the
6 relative boost of any two observers, that are at rest with respect to different
7
8
parts of a time slice
9
10
11
12
13 The kinematics refer for example to photon or particle trajectories and these
14
15
are determined by the system’s space-time metric. Whether the curved
16 spacetime metric is the result of a gravitational field or of a flowing medium
17 becomes irrelevant when the analysis is restricted to the description of wave
18
19 propagation and evolution in this flowing medium: the kinematics are
20 identical and the analogy is robust.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

You might also like