Motion in a Matrix as a new Model of the Physical Universe

Hugh Vreeland's image for:
"Motion in a Matrix as a new Model of the Physical Universe"
Image by: 

Having read and reread a number of times the lead, and, at this point, only other article on this subject, (which I shall take the liberty of henceforth calling "Doc's article,") I am daring to try my own version which I might call, "A Universe of Basic Black Holes."

In another article I have defined what I consider the simplest black hole, an entity which, if the postulate be correct, has a vibrational and rotational period which corresponds to the speed of light and which would be one of those which makes up a matrix of particles which would be in contact with one another without there being a spacing. With a vibrational and rotational velocity corresponding to the speed of light, this contact would transmit information at that speed. In Doc's article, he assumed a spacing, and, inadvertently, calculated the dimensions of a black hole having a mass of one gram.

There are, however, useful conclusions, or implied conclusions, in that article which I wish to accept as basic postulates:

!. There is a matrix.

2. Motions can be analyzed in two categories.

3. Equating the two energy expressions is a valid idea. (E=(mv^2)/2 & E=hu combined to :(mv^2)/2 = hu.)

4. Mass is a vector quantity which probably measures the component of angular momentum opposite to the vibratory or translatory motion of a particle.

5. Planck's Constant, 6.63 x 10^-27 erg-sec is a measure of a basic angular momentum.

6. Mathematical manipulations, including differentiation and integration, carried out on the energy expressions may describe qualities of a fundamental unit.

7. The momentum equation obtained by differentiating the combined energy equation, that is, mv=h, can be evaluated inserting the values for the speed of light, "c," and Planck's constant, "h," to give a value for the mass of a the fundamental unit, a Basic Black Hole. (This is approximately 2.21x10^-37 g. ) Since this was originally written it was realized that this mass is the mass of a black hole having a radius of 1 cm. A better version of this statement is to directly equate Planck's constant to the definition of angular momentum. When this is done it is seen that 2.2l x 10^-37 is the size of a "universal torque or unit of angular momentum.

8. The momentum equation can be integrated to form two energy equations wherein either mass or velocity is considered as a variable.

9. One of these equations may describe vibration the other rotation. The assumption being here that the equation considering velocity as the variable describes vibration for a stationary particle. The mass equations then is related to rotation.

To these I add a few more postulates:

10. The momentum equation from #7 above describes not only the Basic Black Hole, but also in the form of mv=h, all basic particles including the electron and proton.

11. Energy calculations for the Basic Black Hole can be used to estimate other Black Hole aggregates.

12. Integrations of the energy expressions may be used to estimate other characteristics of natural units.

Now, having said all of this, it seems time to look at the two, or maybe four, other fundamental "Black Holes" that are mentioned in "Doc's" paper, the electron, positron pair and the proton, anti-proton pair. He considered that these may be the fundamental vortex particles, of motions in the matrix.

I have a different idea, taking off on his idea of the proton being an "exploded" positron. What if electron-positron pair production represents. not an aggregation of our basic black holes but rather a splitting of one of our "Simplest Black Holes" into two components! This would occur with the two halves spinning off in opposite directions with vibrational energy converted to translational and rotational energy. This idea does not seem to have been mentioned by anyone else but to make sense.

Can anyone pick up on this and show that the above speculation may fit because of the ideas mentioned above or because of information from other sources? How about showing that this idea can not possibly be valid?

Hey, other people, the more input that comes in on the basis of our reality the better chance we have of understanding what reality is .

Note: Since this article was first written, it has been shown that the angular momentum equation taken directly from the fact that Planck's constant has the dimensions of angular momentum can be evaluated at the speed of light, "c," to give an equation, m x r = h/c, which defines a "family" of entities having a symmetrical "central" entity having "m," and "r" having the absolute value of (h/c)^0.5. This central particle, which "Doc" dubbed the "Sin-Vree" Particle, can be considered, if one wishes to, the parent entity of almost any particle with the possible exception of the neutrino, anti-neutrino and any "parent" formed by their combination. At this point, an anti-neutrino/neutrino "parent" seem a good candidate for the dots of the matrix. The theory of this, is evolving, and, perhaps I should not modify this paper too much more. who knows, someday it may have historical significance.

More about this author: Hugh Vreeland

From Around the Web