G-THEORY thesis CH 10a









  • A NOVEL, IN DEPTH EXAMINATION OF------------------------------377



  • THE PAULI EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE AND THE----------------------378

QUANTUM INTEGER PRINCIPLE                                             
















G-theory firmly rejects the precept of the Lorentz transformation theory which suggests that an emf only exhibits a charge when stationary and that it gains a magnetic field only when moving as well as the Einsteinian idea that a magnetic field in one reference frame becomes an electric field in another. Who has ever noticed a stationary emf? Even singular electrostatic charges and magnetic fields emanating from stationary sources are continuously being propagated outwardly at 'c' in order to maintain their continuance.  In any case we have already determined that any cosmean concept of 'stationary' at any point on Earth is actually relative. I have also provided a convincing argument herein, that mathematics doesn't readily relate to actual objective or even case specifically; subjective reality such as that Lorentzian conclusion or as we will later see his 'invariance'.

An electromagnetic field is considered by classical physics to be one of the fundamental forces of nature, so with regard to magnetic and electrical theory there is no necessity for any change to classical laws and formulas. The following is simply a novel explanation of the phenomena of electromagnetism by G-theoretical analysis, and this is required in order to provide substantial support for the quantum, atomic and cosmological theories which are being postulated herein and presented as a better fit model for understanding the interplay of universal mechanics.

If as previously described, an electron can be envisioned to possess an imbalanced but e-ve electric charge 'elastically' positioned and oriented at ninety degrees to its magnetic dipole and it does not exhibit planetary motion around its nucleus, then the following is likely to be a more plausible explanation of electromagnetism.

The jury is still out on causality or causation of supposed charged particle angular momentum and the spin moment relationship between magnetic and charge fields. This appears to be very problematic (but until the arrival of G-theory, it was found necessary in the standard quantum model to provide missing quantum states) and there is not even any consensus in the academy whether an electron is a non existent point source or not, or whether it indeed has continuum charge/dipole dimensions, shape and/or 'mass'. I agree with the latter because I contend that all matter whether describable or not is non virtual and must have size even if it can never be visible by human observers.

If this is not the case then electrons must by default simply be virtual entities and describable as simply being interference crossing points of the vibrating charge and magnetic fields. This is disproved as a plausible postulation by the hard data. Such a disproof is able to be confidently declared because electron beams can be forced by applied 'energy' to leave the atom and atomic matter and be attracted to travel in an electromagnetically 'bendable' beam* of particles within a vacuum towards a high positive charge. I.e. The old fashioned vacuum tube TV set.

*This then provides considerable support to the position I've taken, in that an electron is concluded to be as I have indicated in the diagram herein which shows it consisting of both a magnetic dipole as well as a negative charge particle dipole (negatively weighted disparate dipole actually).


Something else that should be of profound interest is; that -Maxwell notwithstanding- there is no consensus in science regarding any equation for the motion of charged particles; full stop. I will be addressing such things as double slits and quantum mechanics further on.








A quantum state analysis and explanation by G-theory: The mechanics of a current 'flowing' in a conductor causing the induction of a magnetic field. Note: once again this begins to appear like another physics lesson. However the reason for this assertation should soon become clear; and that is to show that the conclusions which have been drawn from erroneous fundamental assumptions have led to the current debacle between quantum and classical physics.


The thrust of the exercise is to make a strong case that electrons are always particles and never an electromagnetic wave.

Simultaneous with that, I will attempt to show:


1/ that eV is only a charge and not 'energy'.

2/ it is protons and not electrons that are the emitters of both light and electromagnetic particles.

3/ show (in collusion with another section) how electrons in a beam are not emitted in continuous streams.

4/arrive at the proven conclusion that with regard to electron behavior in a conductor, the Quantum Integer Principle (QIP) is a child of Ohm's and Coulomb's laws.



There are a couple of main points to consider.

(a) According to Coulomb; by his formula F=k.Q1.Q2/d2, a charge is a 'force' and not 'energy'. 'Energy' is only produced (used) when a motion is the result of the application of a force (in this case electron motion) and the 'energy' is the product of the applied V-charge and the motion of 'n' electrons per second.

(b) All the formulas applicable to ohms law are related to one second because 1Amp is the rate of motion of one coulomb 'n' of -e charge electrons per second past any given incrementally realizable point. This means that a watt is only an instantaneous value and true  power relatable to joule of energy is actually a watt/sec; and a Joule of 'energy' -which is a quantitative value- is not actually realized until the second is up and all the electrons have flowed, (mathematical proportioning aside). Also at this macro level, power is the product of the motion of a coulomb of electrons/sec times the V-charge. So power is also the product of the V-charge and the coulomb (Cb) 'n' per second, which is, being expanded; P(w/s)= Cb/s.V so 1W/s is 1A/s.1V. This relationship is usually shortened to the incorrect form P=VI. (P=EI). Note: I am using V for emf instead of E which is used herein for 'energy'. Note also: The watt second is NOT a watt/second/second because watts are not coulombs per second, per second; the W.s is related by V.I/sec.

Perhaps this may be confusing, it might be better understood by gaining the realization that the formation of the watt second BEGAN AND FINISHED OVER THE SAME TIME DURATION AS THE AMP RATE WAS FILLING THE JOULE UP; being one Coulomb in one second being forced by one volt. Putting it another way… Consider the second in the formulas. Over the duration of that second a Joule was being created at a build rate, while a watt was being realized for the whole duration of the second and once the Joule was realized so was a watt/second…so a Joule and a watt/second are essentially the same thing except that they have differing subjugative qualities. Clear as mud? Also refer to ENERGY definition.

OK THEN: This all means that; if at a constant emf of one volt, one coulomb per second results in one Joule per second, then ten Cb/s gives ten Joules and ½ Cb/s gives ½ a Joule. Whoa!

Yep, that's right! So in that case then (and in keeping with ohms law and coulombs law) one eV causing the passage of one electron for one second will give 1eJ of 'energy'. In other words; just ONE ELECTRON will pass the emission point and traverse the conductor (with an R of one ohm) and take ONE SECOND for the traverse! Note: This is not necessarily the same electron.


"OK now you're getting ridiculous"! If that's what you think, I must now give some serious push back myself and retrieve my 'rep'. So I'll begin to do this by analyzing electron flow in a quantum size conductor.







From conclusions derived elsewhere, we know that an eV is the voltage (really charge force in Newtons )* required to send one electron into a conductor (not at the speed of light). If we hold that force constant, and if the resistance of the conductor is one ohm, then an electron will be sent once every second. (What the?) Why so long when we know that at the very instant (at 'c') we send an electron into the conductor another one pops out the other end back to the Emf source?

*This will be argued around in circles. I can understand the concept that the earth is falling because it's acceleration energy is being constantly converted into angular displacement inertial energy but I can't understand how you can call a force 'not a force' without any similar transference of the energy derived from a non force (which by reason should be zero) and end up with a definable value in Joules! Maybe I'm as dumb as I look but last time I looked away from the mirror and into a science lesson I found that E=mv. Something with mass is moving in this elctrodynamic example; you know electrons.

So now I'll probably get the argument that 1/ F=ma and 2/ nothing is accelerating so there's no force. Cute! But let me introduce you to E=F. t. again in case you missed it. The time is per second in watt seconds/Joules. Got it?

There is a sleight of hand reason why you get told that EMF is not really a force and we will come to that and more scientific fraud later.

Not all forces cause a visible or definable action but energy usage is the result nevertheless. The following might help your conceptualize: take a proton and -ve muon which are attracted to each other by Coulombic force and they are prevented from moving by a 'humbug' say. I am going to tie gravity with energy later but for now just accept that the force is acting over time and the whole while particles will be emitted into the vacuum by the nucleons because they are heating up.

How are they heating up? Very simple; they are being compressed and the EWF will signal the Q-Ls to emit particles as BBR or thermal emissions which is being continually replaced by the graviton component of energy and after the force is removed the compression stops and if the graviton energy is insufficient to recharge the energy state the nucleons will become cool and be open to reception of  BBR etc. Nothing ever occurs in an energy vacuum.

That's actually true: However at the moment let's consider that we have a magical emf source that doesn't 'dis-CHARGE'; it remains the same at 1eV. Now under normal theoretical circumstances; a conducting system doesn't lose electrons, it loses charge by the changing chemical (or other) conditions that cause the (coulombic) V-charge because not as much charge returns to the source because of the 'energy' used and lost. It is important to note that the electrons don't CHANGE except for their component of velocity. Nether do they become lost. THEY ARE BEING USED; but how?

Imagine very simply that our conductor is just a long line of atoms with a conductive Fermi band. Normally because of QIP this conductor would not allow electrical conductance because it takes a realistic cross sectional area of multiple atoms to allow a 'many and variable' quantity of atomic Fermi bands to become involved under the predicates of QIP to allow the motion of one electron in the viable conductor--- which uses one electron joule--- when forcing one electron in the shell of one atom--- to move to a higher energy level; also subject to PEP. However if we ignore that (and that huge sentence) for the moment, and understanding that when all else remains equal, the charge remains a powerful and constant force, then we must understand that the electrons in the conductor are constrained to come into charge balance with the nuclei in the conductor. I.e. Just as many -ve charges as +ve charges. This is a charge parity constraint.

The instant the eV was applied to the one ohm conductor, the charge was transferred at 'c' through the nuclei, which all gained a proportional share of the charge in the near field. The shared nuclear charge becomes balanced in the first split second instant between the first and last atom whilst the electron balance is yet to come into parity along the length of the conductor. There is a delay for electron parity to be reached because one of the reasons is that an electron is a (non Poincare invariant force caused) (energy state limited velocity) -ve charge containment vessel. Note: Lorentzian relativistic charge field invariance would void this phenomenology completely unless Dirac comes to the rescue and voids the relativity itself and we are back to a normal space time invariance situation..

Now we should be able to consider in the first instant that the first atom now has an extra electron in its shells, so it has gained a net 'e' -ve charge of 1eV (at first), whilst the last atom at the positive terminal of the micro cell has a net positive charge of ditto which, because it is caused by the loss of an electron, we can refer to as a hole. That electron won't instantly hop back in for parity purposes because it is Mr. Coulomb who demands that the only way left open to return to parity (because it is being subjugated to QIP/PEP and Fermi regulation) is to travel into the now closer and more positive emf terminal, so the emitted electron travels unerringly towards the positive terminal of the emf source by resultant coulombic force attraction.

However as the quantum and Fermi conditions allow over time (fully caused by the velocity variant in delayed field interactions with nuclei)*, the spare electron and hole will migrate towards each other over one second (because a Joule is essentially a watt second so the delivery of the eJ also takes one second) and meet in the middle where they cancel each other out, and once that has occurred, both electron and charge parity have been achieved and if the eV remains, another electron is then forced into the conductor and the process repeats. Note: We now have the notion of current flow and notional charge propagation in the reverse direction. The QIP/PEP and Fermi restrictions are related to the length and cross section of the conductor as well as the atomic characteristics which all results in the notion of conductivity in that sense and resistance in the former sense.

*The electrons don't move linearly at 'c' but they do move at almost 'c' (fine constant variant) in and between orbitals. Linear conceptualization of electron flow is just a sum of average migration. We are analyzing the migration of just one electron and under the conditions stated that will take exactly one second because the whole thing is controlled by the interrelated laws of physics. This is also the reason for the phase lagging in electromechanical theory. The second is actually arbitrary.


While the two bilateral 'notionally equal and opposite charge and hole entities' were making their way down the conductor they were upsetting the voltage state of any atom they became intimately associated with at any given moment. This caused the atoms when they became so involved, to see a time delayed and individual voltage change in their near field charge which was then applied to the counter charge in the nuclei EMF sharing chain and because of that; this was voltage change was simultaneously subtractive from (against) the applied 1eV voltage by n-1/n. So now that portion of V-charge must be made up to the expected terminal charge by the electrochemical or electromagnetic process so involved, and 'energy' becomes used and some will also be emitted to the vacuum.

This counter charge phenomenon caused the exhibition of a zero charge resultants at the nuclei (but not the ends of the conductor) for the complete duration of the event. It was this that prevented any further electron injection into the end of the conductor until the total electron-nuclear charge parity had finally been reached. When that finally occurs and travels to the end of the conductor (at 'c'); then another electron will be forced by the arrival of that positive charge at its end to move into the Fermi conductance band toward that now positive nucleus and once more the hole is migrating by a reverse charge process to meet it in the middle of the conductor and when that occurs parity is reached and the reverse charge which was acting against the emf is removed and while the eV remains the process will repeat at one second intervals. Note: In visualization of this event it becomes reasonable to assume that such a process might vary a little, but never enough to reach the charge threshold required for unusual electron injection, which would be likely to be close to or just below 1eV. This predicates that ther will be extraneous  emissions to the vacuum but never more than the pertinent laws will allow at any given voltage across any given resistance. This because law is law and force has to produce motion to somewhere whenevr possiblt and BBR is a possibility. If all the conditions remained perfcet then such BBR would be quantum stepped. It is this imperfection which allows apparently random BBR.

So this is all theoretically perfect but in a real world conductor the average of such electron actions is proportional to that process less losses by fault process and the indicated emissions.

 In effect this causes an equal counter force to become reflected back to the eV source through the nuclei, so in that case the charge that originally forced an electron to move into the conductor then become zero by opposite charge summation. This remains the case until electron charge balance is achieved. That occurs (this particular case specifically) in one second, because the electrons in the conductor while totally reliant on their own charge imbalances to enable them to arrive at parity, find the process quantum stepped because of the ' non relativistic invariance' in quantum emf lag. Because of this; being that the electrons must negotiate many definable and various charge lag caused, Fermi and QIP/PEP state obstacles the process takes exactly one second. Note: This second is an arbitrary number but it is part of the whole relationship from which the eV was derived in the first place. It is according to ohm's law where the R is 1 ohm. So; we are able to conclude that Ohm's law is a derivative of QIP with PEP and Fermi law subjugation.

Whether you have previously recognized that or not; this relates quantum and classical physics, and from this you should be able to see an avenue (by the conductivity and the cross sectional area and length of a copper conductor say) to calculate the time taken for a quantum state action by QIP at 1eV(eJ) by calculating the time taken for the electron to move through one atom. This is all explained elsewhere. Refer to quantum definition.

We can see from this (as well as the following assertation) the reason why electrons leave the surface of a cathode in discreet clusters. This is because the replacement electrons take quantum subjugated time to reemerge at the surface of the medium because of the same QIP, PEP and Fermi constraints. Note: During high temperature plasma events the clusters can be derived from deep within the cathode at the same time that the holes cause a similar event to occur at the anode. This results in atomic bond failure and perhaps complete atomic deprecation in small areas. The corresponding electron emission/reception in packets actually leaves damage pits behind in both surfaces.

Other crucial references are available. Refer to the sections… ELECTRON BEAM SLIT BEHAVIOR, and THE DERIVATION OF M-E EQUIVALENCE.

This one second delay is the case by ohms law which has been derived by observance and in no small way because an ohm is dependant on the conductivity and cross sectional area of a conductor. So even though conductor sizes become variables, with all else being equal; the resultant quantum forces that prescribe the predicted 'flow' rate of the electrons are always the SAME. In that case, if the lone electron didn't take one second then the behavior would be in defiance of ohm's law and by extension The QIP. This in essence makes QIP a law in electrical analysis and no longer a principle regardless of whether it is a quantum wave function restriction or not. We are not dealing with that subject here. Note: delayed and stepped behavior is a characteristic of quantum level processes, and it is absolutely amazing that such is mathematically required to be so at this electrodynamics quantum level. This could mean in an astoundingly profound way that Ohm's, and probably Coulomb's law are causative of QIP which is the subjugative of PEP which otherwise hangs around in fermions without a known cause.

In fact this legally necessary electron propagation behavior should likely be taken as theoretical proof that PEP-QIP relationship assertion is fact. However when it comes to 'chicken and egg' resolutions I go with the -gravity determined- light speed limit caused emr lag as the whole cause of QIP and PEP at the quantum level. Lorentz et al were wrong in requiring 'quantum emr wave invariance' as will be proven later; but they can be forgiven because then they didn't know anything about the quantum world back then: You can't be! You will be held aacountable in historical analysis.

You might not agree at all with any non relativistic arguments and give some lame but typical 'push back' along the lines of… "But quantum physics doesn't obey the laws of classical physics". I will counter by this proof that it does and must wherever such laws can be shown to be empirically applicable. The reason for such an opinion as yours being widely held is because of the lack of understanding of the likely phenomenology which is herein presented. I am also forced to opine that you who so object are of the weird opinion that occurrences at the quantum level are somehow linear as well as invariant which would cause absolute inelasticity! I will also refer you to the fact that propagation delays in low power data transfer devices are a real problem which is further disproof of Lorentz and co's theories as we will see.

We must also consider the theoretical case whereby we have a relatively very short and fat conductor that's many atoms thick but only one atom long, and which still has a resistance of one ohm. In that case the electron will not be able to pass through until all the atoms in the only and facing layer have arrived at a state of charge parity*. I must admit that this is just as difficult for me to conceptualize but it must be the case because of the pertinent laws and formulas that we have just been analyzing. We should be able to conclude from this that relative to conductors of various sizes the proportionality of the charge and electron flow components of resistance is variable but it is  all evened out in the sum.

Related note: In analyis of the likely activity of the conductance band gaps it would appear that the outer layer would be the most 'uncluttered so to speak' and therefore the area of least resistance. If you refer to the chapter regarding the conductance of electricity and electromagnetism you will notice that there will be an induced nucleon charge tilt towards one side of the nucleons in the same direction for all and the result should be a slight charge across the conductor which will cause the electrons to tavel morew to one side than the other. This factor as well as the previous 'skin'effect' factor will produce a slight variation in the relationship of the eV and the J in normal practice. All this will do is cause a slight change in the conductance/resistance of any conductor relative to size and in the macro world this is not a problem but when microscopic conductors become envisage such phenomenon need to be addressed.

*ignoring the probabilities of electron tunneling for this theoretical analysis.


If you use some imagination you should be able to consider that when a greater voltage and a subsequently massive number of electrons are involved, that the time delay does becomes averaged even though the properties of the conductor will still affect the abilities of the electrons in their constant efforts to achieve charge parity. I.e. Electrons are forced in and out of the conductor at 'c' but the rate of the flow is adjudicated by (among other things) the resistance of the conductor. It is important to realize that the rise time of the initial emf upon its application DOESN'T CHANGE it's just that in this case it is temporarily prevented by nuclei blocking from being transferred back to the charge source. At real world values of E, I and R the process becomes so even that equal voltages are able to be measured at equal distances along the length of the conductor.

So we are able to reason that such quantum level propagation delays are not realized under observations of normal everyday electronic and electrical processes. However this delay phenomenon does begin to raise its head when attempts are made to engineer 'very low power' data transfer devices down to 0.15Vdo. Non clocked handshaking protocol technologies such as MTCMOS are under development as I write in order to hopefully ameliorate that propagation delay problem as much as possible. The reasons for this phenomenon at such low power levels will be shown mathematically to align well with the just noted conclusions of this theory. I.e. The process just described creates a psuedo resistance increase at low power levels as well as the noted propagation delays which remain inexplicable and not predictable under any relativistic phenomenology. The G-theory examination just undertaken has predicted this finding of computer engineers. That is serious model support for G-theory.


Link; http://comp.uark.edu/~smithsco/DI_low_power.pdf


If a delay were to be required then it stands to reason that one could possibly be engineered by the utilization of multiple parallel low power conductors or semi-conductors as a novel approach to the engineering of 'delay lines' without the need for the normal space intensive technology. Of course with suitable semiconductor junction doping and voltage variations one could achieve the phenomena of electron tunneling which could also upset the delay time and this could be voltage or quantum (photon) controlled to permit other novel applications.

Now backing up a little: Even though the vast majority of nuclei initially achieve charge parity at 'c', they are all being continuously perturbed by electrons moving through their conductance bands. This causes the charge from the emf source to be continuously required to be transferred in the opposite direction to the electron flow. This charge component of the 'energy' being used is being continuously drawn from the voltage source and accepted back in at the other end; less losses*. The voltage source has now been discharged (theoretically in one quantum step) and the power used is by the formula P=EI/sec.

Returning to our analysis of the quantum level phenomenology:

In order for another electron to be injected, the continuation of--- or the introduction at another time of--- an eV must be applied by the voltage source or this can't occur. As this continues we would normally notice that the source is becoming discharged. Where did the 'energy' and charge go? Answer: They were used up as power/sec. to emit (as described) photons, BBR and other virtual force losses to the environment but mostly at the 'work' site, being the resistor (lamp filament etc.) or electromagnet coil or whatever.

*The losses are the priority subject of the next section.


The main reason that an eV was historically concluded to be 'energy' and not the charge it really is, is likely because of the false assumption that electrons rather than nucleons are thought to be the emitter of light (as well as other emissions).

If we take the popular (eV=energy) scenario to be the case and the current in the conductor on each side of an incandescent light filament say, is the same; this in turn predicates the absurd conclusion that because the 'energy' is used as electron volts then the electrons must be somehow concluded to have NOT LOST 'ENERGY' even though they emitted 'energy' as photons.

The only way such a problem is able to be resolved under that paradigm is to conclude that the 'energy' that was emitted as photons must have come from the voltage component of the formula P=V.I by some sort of… virtual into physical… magical transformation phenomenology of vacuum current from nuclei to electrons if indeed electrons were to emit photons. This is of course what is actually considered to be the case and that of course proposes that energy is some sort of ethereal 'stuff' once again, and it just sort of jumps from atoms to electrons which magically turn the 'stuff' into photons. That's not science. Where is the phenomenology? Where does the energy that must be lost go? The saying that quantum science is in a different universe to classical physics is just a blatant copout!

This nonsense however contradicts Coulomb and Ohm. If we instead consider the true case; whereby electrons--- having already gained 'energy' by the FORCE--- in (finally) using up the eV (force) that made them move; perturbativly (force) changed the state of the atoms they become intimately associated with in real time. This force consequently causes* the nucleons (protons) to emit the photons, and in turn the electrons lose 'energy' by a loss of velocity and force capability caused by depletion of charge drag (force) from the same protons. This occurs especially where electron motion becomes constricted by 'bottle necks' caused by (forced) nuclear proximity, and they do lose speed even though the current speed generally remains the same in the macro world. How? Don't worry it's just physics by ohm's law and conductivity/resistance phenomenology. As you can see; my analysis utilizes forces to cause action and not just blind energy 'stuff' transfer for no damn good reason!

*Understand the cycle. Force causes motion when it travels in objecst which perturb or strike other objects. This consequently transfers some relative motion which thereby displaces some force to another place; and energy and work have been seen to be done and energy has also seen to have been shifted. However the energy can't be a moving subjectivism unless by action of a force and the motion of particles at the very least.

If you carefully consider the previous assertation you should understand that this phenomenon will affect the overall charge relationships in the WHOLE conductor, so all the electrons will slow down on average along the whole length. The current is actually determined by the R of the filament and not the speed of electrons. If you object; I'll show you my classical formula, care of Mr. Ohm. You show me yours! Note: Any idea that electrons travel through a conductor at 'c' has been now 'proven' false.


MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE ASSERTATION: Note the definition of the eV as used herein is as a charge.


Consider a new case where we keep the resistance the same but we double the voltage force to 2eV then; two electrons will be injected and the time taken to traverse the conductor will decrease to 1/8 sec. and the power should increase to 4eW/sec. This would seem to be predicated by the formula P=E2/R. (R is 1ohm in both this and the principal example).

When we take this analysis back down to charge interactions at the atomic level this reduction relates to atomic radius in the coulomb law formula for two atoms (over which the charge relationship is occurring). This formula is F(V)=2eV/2r2 where 'r' is atomic radius. 'R' is not invoked because we are only evaluating the inverse square law relationship between the two atoms.

That relationship will never change regardless of the thickness of the conductor because of the averaged apportioning of vectors, and once the charge increases to any real world value then the 2r2 divisor gives little to no effective result. In this way the coulombic form validates the watts per second form because by P=EI/t, the time delay-'t' in relation to the quantum units of E and I is by t=1/eV.eJ so in this sub Joule case we have t=1/eV.eJ which computes to an almost infinitesimal time delay until the power is down to about 1e-8eW which occurs at about 0.1V where t=3.9e-31sec*. So we can notice that once the power is greater than this, the time delay doesn't really appear to exist. However at one eV (or one eJ) it's a completely different 'quantum level' story because in that absolutely minimal case we have t=1/1 where t=1sec.

If the current falls to under a coulomb/sec (1A) and a voltage of 1V the time delay begins to come into affect but it would hardly be noticeable under such relatively high power real world applications.

*Also the facts are; that the time delay is also inversely proportional to current (I) and proportional to (R) so in low power data circuits you could see a realizable time delay. This proven theory puts the brakes on useful data propagation speeds at power values less than the minimums currently enjoyed. Below this is the nebulous region where quantum stepped and delayed processes cross into the real world of macro averaged behaviors.



CONCLUSION and more mathematical proof:

By now you must be asking is this all necessary; can't we just get down to it? Answer: If I hold out any hope of convincing you of the veracity of my complete model then I need to fix the physics that centuries of inurnment to dark age theories has led to by sheer laxness caused by blind deference to relativity while ignoring the simple and intuitive physics that we already have and improving on it in a sensible and interpretable manner: Sorry!



An eV is basically related to the force required to move one electron into a medium with a known 'R' for 1.602e-19J of 'energy' to be realized. The following is determined to be the case: An eV is the charge component of power which causes the motion of one electron (-e) charge which travels at a velocity that in product combination with an eV carries 1eJ of kinetic 'energy' in one second. Any losses through a resistor are mainly lost by the nucleons, and this is reflected in the electrons also losing velocity. Therefore it is the eV that remains the constant for any give R, and it is the electron Joule that reduces accordingly. However it is a salient contention that an eV cannot cause any power to be exhibited without the consequential motion of an electron (-e) charge.

The eV is to a watt as an eJ is to a watt/sec. the eV s instantaneous energy while the eJ is the energy used by the (continuously) forced motion of one electron after one second. This is similar to saying "I have a 230kw car" which is a mention of the instantaneous power which says nothing about whether the car can maintain that power output over time and at all speeds.

The relationship from the quantum level up is as follows… The units of the terms are in brackets. Eq is quantum energy, E is 'energy', Q is charge, n is electron quantity less than a coulomb, P is power, ψ is for quantum wave function with the value of the fine constant, -e is for electron charge, and Cb is for Coulomb…


Eq =Qψ.n(-e) (eJ) as quantum term units (eV/sec) (electron velocity is unknown)

E=Qe.Cb (J)             ditto classical (v). (One coulomb by one eV is one eJ.)

V.I= (W/sec)      (I) is Cb/sec.           ditto classical    (v) (A)

Note: R has been ignored because it effects all of the terms as per Ohm's law.


There are many strange ideas floating around about the relationships between these terms. Some will confidently state that a Coulomb is the unit of electrical charge. Confusion begins to reign when something as simple as shortening the unit of the watt/second to the watt or the eJ to the eV (both those changelings only have specious and subjective existence) is allowed to go on. This readily leads to the erroneous assumption that an amp is a coulomb and a Joule is a coulomb/sec. The closest myth of all--- and which is almost the truth--- is that a Joule is a watt/second; however that's simplistic and hides the real relationship whereby a watt/second is the product of the volt and the coulomb/sec, which is the amp; being one Cb(n)/second and the Joule is only related to the coulombic transition over any unspecified time. Refer to ENERGY definition.

The above analysis is important when it comes to evaluating an eV while analyzing electrons traveling in a beam in a vacuum. In that case the coulombic charge is not acting through a conductor and therefore there is no counter transference of charge via nuclei. In that case all the 'energy' being transferred is by the motion of electrons that can each only exhibit the same constant charge, but that same constancy doesn't apply to spin, velocity or electron quantity (summative electron charge) so the rate of 'energy' usage must be almost entirely dependant on loss of electron 'v' and some by any or all of these variables. Such analysis has been undertaken elsewhere in the thesis.

The fundamental quantum phenomenology as presented is also the basis for the observance of resistance as well as power as/in watts/sec.

You may be astute and understand from this all; that the mass of an electron might be able to be calculated if you calculate its velocity by the computed length of a one ohm conductor of known conductivity and relate that to its cross sectional area by r2 were 'r' is the atomic radius of 'copper say'. However this will not be accurate because of the losses previously described.

However this also relates to the quantum by PEP as noted above. This would then relate the mass of an electron with a quantum value of bosons. This is not M-E equivalence it simply means that we have proof that the 'energy' used to move an electron to the next shell is essentially the same as the 'energy' used to change a quantum state and cause the emission of a photon, and that's related to the mass of the electron by kinetic 'energy' and Plank's equations.

This could propose that a full quantum of photons (hard x-rays) would have the same mass as an electron*. This of course doesn't prove any mass dynamics for a photon nor causality of action, although we are able to assume that one (single) electron volt of force achieves that quantum step in exactly one second. Note: This would be the time taken in a lone atom in space to gather a quantum of bosons from the quark lattice and emit them should one electron be captured by its orbitals before it (electron) was summarily evicted after that one second as well and then the atom would be receptive to BBR (both photonic and trionic) of more than a photon because of that photonic loss and the additional action-of-ejection force losses by BBR which put the atom even further out of parity. Strange huh? I didn't just make that up. That was predicated by the current assertation. Note: Parity is not the same as universal energy balance. I think there's an experiment that proves that.

*I don't want to get down in the weeds here and cover ground that many others before me have analyzed in excruciating detail.


Law: This means that a quantum step takes one second when a 'charge force' of one eV is applied to one atom at parity full stop.

It only appears to be shorter when a real world typical 'mess' of atoms and electrons is being analyzed. This however opens a huge can of worms because NOW THE quantum delay BECOMES RELATABLE TO GRAVITY by speed delay, and even to the idea of the mass of the macro being related to the mass of the micro BUT NOT BY  simplistic MATTER or (even worse) MASS SUMMATION.









What we have here is an indolent mathematical proof of G-theory itself. I.e. The 'second' (which physics has tied to everything) is related to gravity in orbital dynamics, and now we find by the above quantum analysis of ohms law, that the 'second' is also being related to the QIP/PEP relationship and from there to the photon quantum that is in turn related to the speed of light which is caused by gravity and which in turn causes the time delayed gravity in the first place (which by reason of universal equilibrium) once again causes the orbital dynamics from which we initially derived the 'second', and herein we can reasonably evaluate such circular interconnection as proof!

'That's all very interesting you say, but we'll have to prove that by mathematics.' 'Mathematics is just mathematics--- I say 'so that's not of concern to me right now because I can see the obvious and I need to move to other considerations and take you with me on a heightened journey of discovery into the world of the atom, which takes this quantum behavior to a new level.