Home / News / Science news /

New Unified Force Theory Predicts Measured Values of Physics

David Thomson and Jim Bourassa of the Quantum AetherDynamics Institute (QADI) released a new theory which mathematically predicts and explains the measured values of physics with striking precision. Their Aether Physics Model includes the "Holy Grail" of physics sought by Albert Einstein; the Unified Force Theory. "Our model shows the forces are unified by a simple set of general laws explainable as the fabric of space-time itself, which is a dynamic, quantum-scale Aether," said Bourassa.

Posted by C1ay
04 June, 2006 07:06:39

print article
A | A | A

In February 2002, Thomson was observing a peculiar setup of a Tesla coil and noticed what appeared to be two distinctly different manifestations of charges. Not finding an adequate explanation for why charge should take on two different forms, Thomson decided to re-examine the foundations of quantum physics. Within three weeks, he discovered the simple, empirically based equations, which produce the Unified Force Theory. "This new model of quantum existence does not change the laws of Quantum Mechanics, it merely changes our view of quantum structure," Thomson said.

"I placed an ad on my website for someone to develop the mathematics for a Unified Field Theory based upon the Aether," said Bourassa. "David said he not only could do it, but already had." Since then, they joined together to form QADI, a registered 501(c)3 non-profit research organization devoted to the development and dissemination of the Aether Physics Model, published Secrets of the Aether, a book about the theory, and released a new white paper that summarizes the theory, A New Foundation for Physics, which is available online at www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf.

Infinite Energy Magazine will be publishing the white paper this fall. "We just received our first acknowledgement," said Thomson. "Because we are self-educated and this revolutionary discovery about the mathematics and geometry of the space-time fabric is not coming from a well-known scientific organization, it has been slow to gain acceptance, despite the stunning results the theory produces," he continued. The fabric of space-time Thomson refers to is the ubiquitous Aether, long discarded by modern science. According to Albert Einstein's Special Relativity theory, there cannot be a rigid Aether, as envisioned by Albert Michelson. However, Thomson and Bourassa's quantified Aether is fluid, as recently proposed in the December 2005 issue of Scientific American by Theodore Jacobson and Renaud Parentani.

Besides the Unified Force Theory, QADI has also developed the foundation for an atomic binding energy equation, an electron binding energy equation, a conductance constant, fine structure constants for the proton and neutron, and geometrical models for photons, subatomic particles, and quantum units of space-time. These are significant accomplishments, and should be receiving close attention from scientists and researchers. The theory is testable, coherent, mathematically derived, empirically based, and uses easy-to-understand Newtonian equations.

Along with providing more precise values for the Strong Nuclear Charge and Weak Nuclear Relationship, three other measurements where they predict a slightly different value than the Standard Model are in the Casimir equation, the neutron magnetic moment, and neutron g-factor. More accurate experiments should confirm which values are correct, which could verify the validity of the Aether Physics Model.

Source: Quantum AetherDynamics Institute

Comments (36 posted):

arkain101 on 04 June, 2006 03:36:05

Right On!!!! I hope things progress for them.

cwes99_03 on 04 June, 2006 04:14:34

I must say, sounds interesting. Have to read the white paper when it gets published. Until then, Arkain, keep up your work. :)

C1ay on 04 June, 2006 04:43:26

I must say, sounds interesting. Have to read the white paper when it gets published. Until then, Arkain, keep up your work. :) The white papre is published. There's a link in the 3rd paragraph of the article....

Pyrotex on 04 June, 2006 07:26:13

Okay, I managed to read about 1/4 of the white paper. I had to quit. The sentences had become so tortuously confusing that I could not make any further headway. There are two possible reasons why an explanatory essay should be unintelligible. 1--The subject is so profound and requires such a new and unique vocabulary, that it is essentially difficult by virtue of its novelty. 2--The subject is being hidden behind an obfuscade of profoundly incoherent rhetoric. Consider the following extract: "We can think of cardinal mass and charge as being associated with objective reality, while ordinal mass and charge is associated with environmental, orsubjective, reality. The environment is non-material, but the quantification of the environment is as essential for understanding existence as the quantification of the matter that abides in it." It almost makes sense. Almost. But why doesn't it make sense? Is it because the subject is so arcane? No, apparently, the text itself is intended to be opaque to analysis. This white paper is supposed to EXPLAIN, dammit! Does it? No, it doesn't! It just weaves an intricate Gordian Knot of obfuscation and tantalizing hints of what might (or might not) be insights into a new way of looking at physics. A white paper is not written to give hints, but to make clear. This white paper makes nothing clear.

TheBigDog on 04 June, 2006 07:31:21

Nice to see you are feeling better Pyro. :) Are there Cliff's Notes to the white paper? Bill

CraigD on 04 June, 2006 09:20:16

Are there Cliff's Notes to the white paper?For starters, I�d like to read �How ANFFP/the APM explains the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment]Michelson-Morley experiment results�. If it can�t explain that (other than by denying the validity of the experimental data, a common position with ether theories supporters), I�d give it no further attention.A white paper is not written to give hints, but to make clear. This white paper makes nothing clear.I share of Pyrotex�s opinion of what a white paper should be. I usually go a step further, and say that, if you can�t give a general sense of a theory in medium felt-tip pen on a 3�x5� card, you need to reorganize how you are presenting it.Okay, I managed to read about 1/4 of the white paper. I had to quit. The sentences had become so tortuously confusing that I could not make any further headway.This sounds like a challenge! I vow to get through the paper, proving that my capacity to endure torture is as least 4 times that of Pyrotex ;)

arkain101 on 05 June, 2006 03:22:04

I must say, sounds interesting. Have to read the white paper when it gets published. Until then, Arkain, keep up your work. What do yo mean, keep up my work? I assume you have followed some of my posts here? and I take it you think it is related to the theory in this article.. that stuff aside, you bet, theres no reason I would stop when making such great progress. :hyper: :hihi:

Tormod on 05 June, 2006 06:04:47

I am highly suspicious of this paper myself...if it were published in a more likely journal for physics I might be more of a "believer" but *Infinite Energy Magazine*??? Right...

C1ay on 05 June, 2006 02:19:54

I am highly suspicious of this paper myself...if it were published in a more likely journal for physics I might be more of a "believer" but *Infinite Energy Magazine*??? Right... Yeah, it's not showing up in many of the other news sources either. I'm anxious to see if any serious holes are poked in it by the physics community. So far I'm not seeing any thumbs up or down on it....

KickAssClown on 05 June, 2006 02:23:54

Besides a pompuos, over the top claim of Theory of Everything. I have to jump up an say w00t. These are people after my own heart. The theory needs allot of work, but it's on the right track. They need help proving or disproving the theory and it's predictions. The science community should be happy to oblige. This is the bones of the Theory I've been working on myself. They have allot of things way more defined than I do, but they are also missing crucial pieces, like the Neutrino. It's beautiful really, but it needs help. Shall we attempt to tare this one to peices, I bet it will hold up, mostly.

TheFaithfulStone on 05 June, 2006 03:06:46

Cap'n! My crank-o-meter, she jus' wenna straight on pas' eleven and is a-headin' on up to twelve! TFS

Tormod on 05 June, 2006 03:41:18

TFS Can I have a Talisker with that, please. :hihi:

Little Bang on 05 June, 2006 04:34:17

Wow, if this is true it's the most important find in the history of physics.

infamous on 05 June, 2006 07:42:34

I think I can smell the A...ether again. Somehow I always suspected it would reappear within the scientific circles. Waves of EM everywhere, but then waves must and apparently do consist of something, otherwise what would be waving??????????????Incredibly beautiful and immensely interesting theory.....................Infy

TheFaithfulStone on 05 June, 2006 08:04:32

that ain't the aether you're smelling infy. tfs

Pyrotex on 05 June, 2006 08:07:26

I think I can smell the A...ether again. ... Wow, me too! Doesn't it smell just like Cold Fusion???? :hihi:

UncleAl on 05 June, 2006 08:30:00

Quantum AetherDynamics http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.jpg Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004) http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml No aether http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/ http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7 No Lorentz violation (physical reality) - (empirical reality) = religion

Tormod on 05 June, 2006 08:56:12

Wow, me too! Doesn't it smell just like Cold Fusion???? :hihi: If it smells like cold fusion, looks like cold fusion, and sounds like cold fusion...what have you got?

Turtle on 05 June, 2006 09:28:39

If it smells like cold fusion, looks like cold fusion, and sounds like cold fusion...what have you got? Red herring?;)

KickAssClown on 05 June, 2006 11:49:14

How much has everyone read of this?

C1ay on 05 June, 2006 11:50:14

How much has everyone read of this? I've read about half of the white paper so far....

KickAssClown on 06 June, 2006 12:07:52

The Lingo is abit odd, I have to say, however they predict two different types of charge, same as I've put forth for my own theory. I think there Quantum of Charge however is slightly off. As I've said before in other posts and Threads, though intimately connected, These two types of charge can exist alone. Aether Theories Aether History Luminiferous Aether Quantum Charge I really like the Wavical nature of the Aetheric Model of the Atom.

Erasmus00 on 06 June, 2006 01:46:01

How much has everyone read of this? I've read much of it, but it seems very different then a typical theoretical physics paper. It seems like a lot of hand waving, very little in the way of anything concrete. -Will

EWright on 06 June, 2006 01:58:38

Waves of EM everywhere, but then waves must and apparently do consist of something, otherwise what would be waving??????????????Incredibly beautiful and immensely interesting theory.....................Infy Then in what medium do the waves of Aether propagate?

infamous on 06 June, 2006 02:05:30

Then in what medium do the waves of Aether propagate?I think you meant to say; In what medium would the Electromagnetic waves be propagating? Answer: The Aether ofcourse.........................Infy

EWright on 06 June, 2006 03:02:15

I think you meant to say; In what medium would the Electromagnetic waves be propagating? Answer: The Aether ofcourse.........................Infy No, that part I understand. I meant the "waves of Aether" you referred to... ;)

KickAssClown on 06 June, 2006 03:02:44

Exactly. Aether theory is that Space-Time is a Physical Measurble thing. and that EM propagates through the medium that is Aether. This is Quantum Space-time Theory by a different name. Something which I've discussed on these boards before regarding the idea of a particle as a property within a sort of "bubble"

arkain101 on 06 June, 2006 03:33:57

LOL, now what the heck is aether and what makes IT tick? its like opening a can of worms thats in a giant can ful off smaller cans of worms!

infamous on 06 June, 2006 03:42:58

No, that part I understand. I meant the "waves of Aether" you referred to... ;)Ahh yes, Wright you are. My mistake, that should have read, 'waves of Em everywhere'.....................good call EWright, now I'll need to edit won't I?.........................Infy

ughaibu on 06 June, 2006 03:45:54

The hands themselves are the medium in which they wave, why need there be a distinction between the wave and the medium?

CraigD on 06 June, 2006 03:56:40

How much has everyone read of this?I�m about 50% throught the whitepaper. So far, it has all the hallmarks of pseudo-science: it�s by �outsiders�; invents a completely new terminology using impressive-sounding phrases (even a bit of church-Latin � �Ligamen circulatus�); appeals to recognizable authorities, such as Einstein, with the qualification that what most people believe those authorities said is not what they really intended; and, most suspicious, teases that the information it provides is incomplete, but is all contained in �the book�, which must be purchased. I�m making every effort to set aside my suspicions, and suppress my annoyance at the authors� weird and inconsistent use of English syntax, enough to finish reading the paper (which, I hope, eventually �gets to the point�), and, hopefully, be able to translate it into conventional English science writing. Already, I�ve broken my promise to myself -For starters, I�d like to read �How ANFFP/the APM explains the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment]Michelson-Morley experiment results�. If it can�t explain that (other than by denying the validity of the experimental data, a common position with ether theories supporters), I�d give it no further attention.The authors reject the accepted MM experimental data early in the white paper. There may be some worthwhile ideas in APM, but what I�ve read so far is not encouraging.

KickAssClown on 06 June, 2006 04:27:16

Well. the real question before you get to that part is: "Is it divisible?" If it is then it is not a Quanta of a Fundemental. However Spacetime would have to be a Fundmental in my mind at least. So is it possible to decouple Space from Time or Mass from Space, or Mass from Time? I doubt it personally. I don't get the whole reference to Hand wavy. It seems to me to clearly layout self-evident properties based upon Standard Theory. Building it's basis from Constants and Laws, and then spring boarding from that into Theorms. Like all theories this one has it's weaknesses, and those should be address, but equally so, it has it's strengths and those should be addressed. GR and SR don't explain the Micro all that well, and QT doesn't explain the Macro all that well either, so obviously something is missing. I personally don't dillusion myself to thinking this theory has all of the answers. However it does explain a few things rather well, and it does put forward a Mathematically sound and Testible theory. It makes predictions and interpetations of current theory that can examined, scrutinized and disproven. Further the Theory admitts that it is not complete. That pieces of it need closer examinations, however it also puts forward pieces that agree with observations and conditions that are delt with by the explinations put foreth. I'm just saying: Don't bang it till you've tried to understand it first. I personally think it's Genuis. I don't believe in Classical Aether, however I do like the Elegance of this model of aether, and how the theory brings together a representation of the Particle as a Wave, A fine Point Particle and a geometric object all at the same time. I mean look at page 10 of the document at the model of a Electron Proton Pair. It's elegant, and simple. It acts as a feynman diagram and a Partical representation simutatiously. Then you've got the who Dipole contions of the Aetherial unit (I think that's what it's called, either that or Onn.). On Page 13. I love pretty pictures they help understand what the hell I'm looking at. Further I love that unlike classical Aether the Aetherial unit has five Dimensions, three Spacial, and two temporal. It has no prefered direction of temporal direction. Which as my friend pointed out allows the particles to "fold", dimesionally. I'm not sure what to make of that just yet, but I know it's significant if true. I don't know about you people, even if it is false I am going to read it. Sci-fi is fiction, however some of the approaches to modern problems have arisen from fiction. For all lies are based in truth.

Little Bang on 06 June, 2006 03:35:16

We all know that the thing will stand or fall on it's own predictions. Myself, I hope like hell their right. We'll see.

QADI on 24 June, 2006 12:55:33

If you go to google and search for "Highlights of the Aether Physics Model", you can find a great summary of the 10 chapters of the book. It will explain in more simplified language than the white paper. Good luck!

Pyrotex on 25 January, 2007 06:19:16

I stopped at 33% of the way through. However, I read all of "Breaking Lorentz symmetry". Though it was technically detailed and very arcane, it was readable and understandable, with only a few re-reads of the densest paragraphs. The Aether white paper contains many, many paragraphs that are opaque even with multiple reads at low speed. So many undefined terms, such as "objective" and "subjective". WTF, Over? The basic sub-structure of the Aether white paper is to merely define new terms by dividing (or multiplying) this physical quantity by that physical quantity. They do this over and over, with no explanation of what they are accomplishing. Too many lame hand-waves. I read the Aether white paper as 92% on my BS-Meter.

silverslith on 12 April, 2007 08:10:48

Originally Posted by Tormod If it smells like cold fusion, looks like cold fusion, and sounds like cold fusion...what have you got? Red herring?;) Wow turtle! Does this theory show that you can do cold fusion by spending 3 months cold smoking a herring?:D