← Gerhard Jan Smit
Jelle Ebel van der Schoot →
Dimensional basic and the Pauli principleQ: There may be circumstances when particles such as electrons accumulate at a particular place. How do you ensure that the Pauli principle is not violated in this case?
A: It is an empirical fact that electrons can accumulate. The Pauli principle will not be violated because the db particle will never be in the same position as another db particle. They can get close together in a circular fashion while under the influence of each other's curvature. What appears to two particles to be instantaneous and linear in time and space, will appear to an outside observer to be a slow process. This is the case when particles get very close together like quarks in an atom. The increasing curvature in the system causes that time seems to slow down for the (human) observer. The Pauli principle is never violated.
Dimensional basic and the strong and weak forces - HiggsQ: In the article you mention: "The model represents a good candidate for a new foundation to represent the observed particles and forces. The short-range force (weak) and the long-range forces (strong, electric and gravitational) can be explained from the described curvatures". Gluons are massless. The Higgs mechanism adds mass only to weak interaction particles (B/W bosons). How do you take that into account?
A: the strong and weak forces have exactly the same origin. The strong forces in an atom (for example, in a proton) where the quarks have found an anchor point are stable because of the short distances. Inside the atom, time is delayed for the outside observer. Therefore, the position of the quarks in the atom appears stable. It is only a matter of perspective. In a collection of molecules (for example, water) where the distances between the different molecules are such that the molecules are within a reasonable influence of each other's curvature stability will also be achieved. The molecules will stay together in a structure but the situation is obviously not stable as the (human) observer can see. About "the massless gluon". We are not convinced of the existence of gluons. But we always argue within the theory. We admit that we don't have enough knowledge, but that may somehow be an advantage. You may disagree. I am sure you think so.
Does the curvature of dimensional basics and photons and electrons add additional curvatures (besides there masses) to space-time?Q: As you know gravitation could be considered in two different ways (Einsteins equivalence principle), like Newton "masses perform forces to each other" or like general relativity "masses warp space-time and masses move (free-falling) on geodesics in space-time". Do you think the curvature of db and photons and electrons you talk about, add additional curvatures (besides there masses) to space-time?
A: In our idea view every single particle will add additional curvatures, always. We don’t speak about masses in this case. We tried to build a bridge between Einstein’s curvatures and the Newtonian gravitation laws. We did that with the article “About gravitation in relation to curvature”, June 21, 2017. We hope our effort makes sense. The point is: how to get the values (constant) we have to put into our formula? For this we had to use the known values on earth. As a result our formula gives an outcome that meets the outcome as calculated in the traditional Newtonian way. There is the possibility that we have a circle reasoning. But still it seems to make sense.
Quantum mechanics versus dimensional basicQ: If particle and wave is the same thing u should also write zero point wave.
A: A particle consisting of multiple db's will imprint an extra curvature on the spacetime surface between the db's. In this a particle is not a wave, it is a cluster of more than one interacting db's. The wave property it possesses are its internal db-movement tracks in time. These movement tracks in time can be described as a wave function. A singular db does not have a wave property.
So particle and wave is not the same thing.
Although it can be said that in case of a multiple db particle the extra curvature imprint on spacetime is a wave function in itself, so then the particle equals that wave function it exhibits in time. One can say that the multiple db particle is in a sense the fluctuating spacetime surface and is in this case the wave.
Dimensional basic and spacetimeQ: How will this db particle be affected by time?
A: The higher the curvature of the multiple db particle, the slower its internal movements will seem for the outside observer. Internal time dilation because of the relative strong bending of spacetime.
Q: So which dimension do db particles exist in??
A: The dimensional basic exists in 3 dimensional spacetime where it has a location and on that location the curvature and thus the bending of spacetime are infinite.
Dimensional basic versus black holeQ: Is it similar to a black hole?
A: The singular db has a property that is almost similar to a black hole. The db has a black hole like curvature imprint on its surrounding spacetime. The difference is that the db particle has no spatial dimensions (length, width, height) and a black hole does. The db is a singularity, the curvature of the particle is infinite (or so to say, spacetime is infinitely bended) on the location of the db.
Q: It is hard to imagine particles without spatial dimensions. It is almost similar to energy. For my own knowledge, if black hole reaches singularity why does emit radiation. Could this mean that when something reaches singularity it changes its dimension to energy?
A: In the db model only the db itself has an infinite curvature and is the only singularity that exists. All macro structures, from elementary particles to black holes, exist out of those singularities but are never a singularity on its own. They can get very high curvatures on the spacetime surface between the db particles but always a fraction of infinity.
So in our universe nothing but the db ever is a true singularity.
Energy is always a resultant power of miscellaneous variables and is a property of spacetime. The more spacetime bends within the multiple db particle, the more energy the particle contains. But it will never contain an infinite curvature on the spacetime surface between the db’s so even if singularity changes its dimension to energy, it will not happen since none of the multiple db particles will ever reach singularity, not even a black hole.
A black hole has an enormous curvature on its event horizon, the more mass, the more spacetime bends, but it is limited in its amount of bending of spacetime. The bending of spacetime on the event horizon is such that it destructs all traditional known particles, including photons, but the curvature experienced by the particles will not be infinite, but is dependant on the internal db quantity of the black hole which lead to a specific curvature strength at the event horizon of the black hole.
A black hole can emit various types of radiation. Within the theory of the db there is of course db radiation. This can occur in various ways. Db's, if under the right angle and right speed, can leave the black hole system and one could say that it is db radiation. Furthermore all types of radiation will be emitted in the process of decomposing particles that get to near to the event horizon of a black hole. Those particles are ripped apart due to the tidal forces of the black hole. The elements of the decomposed particle that can escape the event horizon will be the observed radiation.
The dimensional basic formulaQ: The equation written about db is it correct? And did u discuss on physics forums and what do they think? I am not good in math.
A: The equation is correct, but also an assumption. It has been derived step by step through deducing and writing computeralgebra to support the theory. In the end the only logical conclusion for the curvature around a db is according to formula (0).
The theory has not yet been discussed on many fora because it isn't taken all to serious. It seems to defy the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics, which is not the case. It just lays down a deeper, more fundamental explanation for the observed forces and particles, in sync with observations in various fields of physics as described in the article.
The theory is like putting on glasses to see even sharper into the micro world than before.