“The Unified Field Theory”
Third-Party Conceptual Mirroring
By Dr. Michael J. Bisconti
This article was originally posted in 2004 at //lfnexus.com/thirdpartyconfirmation.htm.
Dr. Bisconti has been waiting for, at least, third-party conceptual mirroring (this is NOT another and independent proof of the “Unified Field Theory”) before releasing any portion of his formal paper Field Unification: The Theory of Infinite Relativity. He has found that conceptual mirroring at //www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw80.html in an article by Professor John G. Cramer on the CENPA (Center for Experimental Nuclear Physics and Astrophysics) website of the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington.
What started Dr. Bisconti on the road to his discovery of the “Unified Field Theory” was something he heard a few years ago in a report from one of our national, nuclear physics laboratories. The statement was clearly and unmistakably made regarding quarks (a quark was once thought to be the tiniest thing in existence) that (in the following statement, the word “larger” does not mean “spatially larger”; it means “possessing greater mass-energy” and the word “smaller” does not mean “spatially smaller”; it means “possessing lesser mass-energy.”):Larger quarks have been discovered inside of smaller quarks.
(In the following statement, the word “bigger” does not mean “spatially bigger”; it means “possessing greater mass-energy.”) Like the fictional, “Dr. Who” time machine called the TARDIS, quarks had been discovered that were “bigger on the inside than they were on the outside.” Now there are only two ways to respond to this: you either believe that you “must be missing some important piece of information” and seek a resolution of the contradiction or you must adopt the postulate that the “universe is ‘dis-integrated,’” (by “dis-integrated” we mean “not consisting of dimensionally contiguous elements”; in other words, the universe is multidimensional and, as we shall show, infinitely dimensional) which leads to the postulate that “the universe is infinite on all scales,” which, as it turns out, suddenly makes everything clear. The following extract from Dr. Bisconti’s paper Field Unification: The Theory of Infinite Relativity provides the core concepts of the theoretical physics that prove the “cosmic disintegration” (“‘dis-integration’ of the universe”) postulate and, in conjunction with other postulates, the “infinite scale” postulate. It is these postulates upon which the Unified Field Theory is based:
(This extract begins on page 5112 of Dr. Bisconti’s full paper.) The problem with all “quark substructure” preon models is the “mass paradox.” (See Dr. Bisconti’s full paper for the lambda variables involved here.) A composite particle at rest may be either lighter or heavier than the sum of its constituent “elements.” A nucleus approximately 10-13 m in size is slightly lighter than the neutrons and protons of which it is composed. (Dr. Bisconti references hundreds of experiments in connection with the preceding and following statements in this paragraph.) This is due to the strong-force binding energy that holds the nucleus together. About 8 MeV of energy are expended when a neutron or proton is pulled loose from its nuclear binding. 10 MeV of energy have been found to occur in multidimensional extrapolations. Thus, an assembled nucleus has about 1% less mass-energy than its disassembled constituent “elements.”
These facts are challenged by the competing fact that the proton, approximately 10-15 m in size, is much heavier than the mass sum of its three constituent “elements,” these being two “up quarks” and one “down quark.” (See the “Quark Hierarchy Matrix” in Dr. Bisconti’s full paper.) The proton’s mass is 938 MeV, expressed in terms of energy units. On the other hand, the “up quark” has a mass of only about 4 MeV and the down quark has a mass of only about 7 MeV. The kinetic energy (but this is influenced by what Dr. Bisconti refers to as the “infinity constant”) of the proton’s quark constituent “elements” provides the majority of the proton’s mass. The quarks in a proton are confined to a “movie” segment (Dr. Bisconti has experimentally proven that the three-dimensional universe exists only in our minds and our perceptions) only approximately 10-15 m across.
The product of uncertainties in position and momentum must be greater than h-bar according to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (though Dr. Bisconti’s theory modifies Heisenberg’s principle by a factor of f(l) [see Dr. Bisconti’s paper for the explanation of f(l)]), so a quark occupying approximately 10-15 m must have an energy-unit, momentum uncertainty of at least 197 MeV. The energy contributions from three quarks (technically, there are multidimensional models that would allow up to 97.6 quarks [see Dr. Bisconti’s paper for an explanation of the “.6”]) having approximately this momentum in each of the three space directions equals the proton mass (+/- l [see Dr. Bisconti’s full document]). The net mass energy of the proton is thus derived primarily not from the rest masses of its constituent quarks but from their internal motions.
Scattering experiments, performed by Dr. Bisconti (Dr. Bisconti has added computer-modelling to the mix) and others, have demonstrated that quarks and leptons are locus subsets in terms of distance scales of less than 10-18 m, approximately 1/1000th of the diameter of a proton or the “kezmeron” predicted by Dr. Bisconti’s “Unified Field Theory.” The momentum uncertainty of a preon confined to a movie segment of this size is about 200 GeV, which is 50,000 times greater than the rest mass of an “up quark” and 400,000 times greater than the rest mass of an electron. This also applies to the predicted kezmeron. Thus, the preon model demands the following paradox, the “mass paradox”:
The particles that make up quarks and electrons (and the predicted kezmerons) each have many orders of magnitude greater mass-energy than the quarks and electrons (and predicted kezmerons) that they compose.
Note that these mass-energies arise from their incredible momenta. (You can pick this discussion up at page 5333 in Dr. Bisconti’s full paper.)