Dear Dr. Chu,

I created a new paradigm for modeling the Cosmos and particles and ran into trouble getting over the non-scientific barriers one finds when revising science.

The paradigm shift proposes that the 3D Universe is a very thin 3D shockwave traveling at the speed of light within a 4D Spatial Manifold. Thus in my model, the Spacetime Continuum is actually 5D and there are a preferred spatial Direction (R) and an Absolute Time PHI, although both are non-observables from within the 3D Universe or 4D Spacetime Continuum.

The figure that describes such paradigm is reproduced here:

Figure 1. Two cross-sections of the Universe. The internal radius is the speed of light times the age of the Universe. The Green circle represents the 3D Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe or just our 3D Universe (XYZ).

It should be easily verifiable that the standard relativistic reference frames (xTau and x’Tau ‘ related to each other by a Lorentz Transformation ) are at hand from inspecting the PHI.XYZ cross-section shown on the right panel of Fig 1. The left panel contains the RXYZ cross-section.

The more interesting paradigm shift is the representation of particles.

The four elementary particles (Electron, Proton, AntiProton, Positron) are represented by four phases of a metric coherences that spins as it travels at the speed of light with the 3D Shockwave Universe. The spinning makes up for an intermittent overlap of the coherence (dilator) and the 3D Universe (Fabric of Space).

The Fundamental Dilator representing the 4 elementary particles is shown below:

Figure 2. Balls Diagram representing Electron and Positron.

The different phases represent metric dilation (Green) or compression (Red). Being an Electron or a Proton indicates just a difference in displacement volume. The phases with horizontal lettering are flush (full overlap) with the 3D Space while the vertical are not thus having no footprint in it. No footprint implies no interaction. The footprint is modeled as our 3D Mass.

Below are the diagrams for Proton and AntiProton:

The different phases represent metric dilation (Green) or compression (Red). Being an Electron or a Proton indicates just a difference in displacement volume. The phases with horizontal lettering are flush (full overlap) with the 3D Space while the vertical are not thus having no footprint in it. No footprint implies no interaction. The footprint is modeled as our 3D Mass.

Below are the diagrams for Proton and AntiProton:

Figure 3. Balls diagram representing Proton and AntiProton. The change in color and orientation represents tunneling and spinning concomitant processes.

I was able to represent all hyperons accordingly. Next you can see the representation of a Pion Plus.

MP

I was able to represent all hyperons accordingly. Next you can see the representation of a Pion Plus.

Figure 4. Balls Diagram for Pion Plus. This diagram represents a complex coherence with three Fundamental Dilator subcoherences.

The point I want to reach is that this representation is amenable to shifting the paradigm for nuclear reactions from Nuclear Chemistry (with reagent and product states with a barrier in the middle, transition state etc) into Nonlinear Hadronics - where particle creation is the result of nonlinear beating between two coherences.

This paradigm shift gives support for the experiment of COHERENT NUCLEAR FUSION.

Normally one, using the Nuclear Chemistry paradigm collide particles with maximum energy (temperature) such as to create fusion. This paradigm disregards length of interaction and phase-matching angle. A velocity defines and angle with the Fabric of Space and thus one can probe the metric elastic ellipsoid of revolution and find the appropriate phase matching angle.

This means that a COHERENT NUCLEAR FUSION experiment would start with particle beams traveling along the same axis. They would interact by converging under the influence of a magnetic lens. Their conversion length would be defined by their de Broglie wavelength and the focal length of the magnetic length as in a standard nonlinear optical interaction. Under perfect phase-matching condition the productions (beating) would be released at specific angles. That would facilitate energy extraction through magneto-hydrodynamics methods.

I know that this is not the most efficient manner to convey a new idea, but there isn't other available to me at this time.

I seek support for the evaluation of my ideas and/or the test of them in the aforementioned experiment.

Nuclear Chemistry experiments are not easy or cheap and are defined by committees or very invested scientists. This means that they would always be timid and always err on the side of caution and never test a new revolutionary idea.

If correct, this paradigm shift would permit the solution of energy problems, interplanetary travel etc.

Please take a second looking at my drawings. I believe someone as intelligent as you are would be able to grasp my paradigm quickly.

I will post this message on my site;

http://hypergeometricaluniverse.com

By the way, I also derived Grand Unification equations, Cosmological Constants from first principles, explained the Pioneer Anomaly, derived Gravitational Lensing and the Precession of Mercury's Perihelion etc. Everything is posted in that blog.

Please feel free to ask me any questions or to contact me.

This is a brief exposure of an conceptually challenging revisionist theory. I am not seeking your endorsement or support. I am just mentioning that this theory if correct would lead to a novel path in energy production and that the only way to seeking this new path is through the exploration of novel paradigm (Nonlinear Nuclear Hadronics). The current paradigm wouldn’t support event the simple exploratory experiments needed to test this paradigm, that is, Science needs a theoretical base to even consider other possibilities.

My theory provides that theoretical support.

Thanks,

MP

PS_ I wrote this letter to Dr. Steven Chu in hopes that it brings attention to my new paradigm. Despite of all claims of perfect knowledge of the Universe, including mines...:) Science is still an experimental branch of knowledge. I wrote the letter trying to shortcut the arduous path of bringing a new revision to Science into the mainstream discussion. Earth could use an alternative energy solution to fossil fuels and the sooner the better. The faster I can bring this paradigm into discussion the sooner someone can decide to do the simple experiment to test the Coherent Nuclear Fusion Hypothesis.

The point I want to reach is that this representation is amenable to shifting the paradigm for nuclear reactions from Nuclear Chemistry (with reagent and product states with a barrier in the middle, transition state etc) into Nonlinear Hadronics - where particle creation is the result of nonlinear beating between two coherences.

This paradigm shift gives support for the experiment of COHERENT NUCLEAR FUSION.

Normally one, using the Nuclear Chemistry paradigm collide particles with maximum energy (temperature) such as to create fusion. This paradigm disregards length of interaction and phase-matching angle. A velocity defines and angle with the Fabric of Space and thus one can probe the metric elastic ellipsoid of revolution and find the appropriate phase matching angle.

This means that a COHERENT NUCLEAR FUSION experiment would start with particle beams traveling along the same axis. They would interact by converging under the influence of a magnetic lens. Their conversion length would be defined by their de Broglie wavelength and the focal length of the magnetic length as in a standard nonlinear optical interaction. Under perfect phase-matching condition the productions (beating) would be released at specific angles. That would facilitate energy extraction through magneto-hydrodynamics methods.

I know that this is not the most efficient manner to convey a new idea, but there isn't other available to me at this time.

I seek support for the evaluation of my ideas and/or the test of them in the aforementioned experiment.

Nuclear Chemistry experiments are not easy or cheap and are defined by committees or very invested scientists. This means that they would always be timid and always err on the side of caution and never test a new revolutionary idea.

If correct, this paradigm shift would permit the solution of energy problems, interplanetary travel etc.

Please take a second looking at my drawings. I believe someone as intelligent as you are would be able to grasp my paradigm quickly.

I will post this message on my site;

http://hypergeometricaluniverse.com

By the way, I also derived Grand Unification equations, Cosmological Constants from first principles, explained the Pioneer Anomaly, derived Gravitational Lensing and the Precession of Mercury's Perihelion etc. Everything is posted in that blog.

Please feel free to ask me any questions or to contact me.

This is a brief exposure of an conceptually challenging revisionist theory. I am not seeking your endorsement or support. I am just mentioning that this theory if correct would lead to a novel path in energy production and that the only way to seeking this new path is through the exploration of novel paradigm (Nonlinear Nuclear Hadronics). The current paradigm wouldn’t support event the simple exploratory experiments needed to test this paradigm, that is, Science needs a theoretical base to even consider other possibilities.

My theory provides that theoretical support.

Thanks,

MP

PS_ I wrote this letter to Dr. Steven Chu in hopes that it brings attention to my new paradigm. Despite of all claims of perfect knowledge of the Universe, including mines...:) Science is still an experimental branch of knowledge. I wrote the letter trying to shortcut the arduous path of bringing a new revision to Science into the mainstream discussion. Earth could use an alternative energy solution to fossil fuels and the sooner the better. The faster I can bring this paradigm into discussion the sooner someone can decide to do the simple experiment to test the Coherent Nuclear Fusion Hypothesis.

Of course, I will continue explaining my theory here. Now there is a possibility of publishing it into a mainstream journal. I will eventually do it while doing my balancing act with life...:)

Cheers,

MP

- December (5)
- November (4)
- October (13)
- September (7)
- August (5)
- July (6)
- June (5)
- May (5)
- April (7)
- March (6)
- February (7)
- January (5)

- December (4)
- November (13)
- October (10)
- September (3)
- August (24)
- July (12)
- June (2)
- May (1)
- March (4)
- February (12)
- January (4)

- Brian Greene (1)
- Censorship (8)
- Coherent Nuclear Fusion (1)
- Erik Anson (3)
- Hypergeometrical Universe (290)
- Kip Thorne (1)
- Lawrence M. Krauss (1)
- Max Tegmark (1)
- Michio Kaku (2)
- Neil deGrasse Tyson (1)
- Paul Ginsparg (1)
- Science News (2)
- Sheldon Glashow (1)
- The Undiscovered Continent (1)

## Comments

There are currently no comments

## New Comment