CPH-Theory

[cph-theory]

New Results Change Estimate of Higgs Boson Mass



New Results Change Estimate of Higgs Boson Mass

In a case of the plot thickening as the mystery unfolds, the Higgs boson has just gotten heavier, even though the subatomic particle has yet to be found. In a letter to the scientific journal Nature, published in the June 10, 2004 issue, an international collaboration of scientists working at the Tevatron accelerator of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab), report the most precise measurements yet for the mass of the top quark — a subatomic particle that has been found — and this requires an upward revision for the long-postulated but still undetected Higgs boson.

"Since the top quark mass we are reporting is a bit higher than previously measured, it means the most likely value of the Higgs mass is also higher," says Ron Madaras, a physicist with the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), who heads the local participation in the D-Zero experiment at the Tevatron. "The most likely Higgs mass has now been increased from 96 to 117 GeV/c2" — GeV/c2 is a common particle-physics unit of mass; the mass of the proton measures about 1 GeV/c2 — "which means it's probably beyond the sensitivity of current experiments, but very likely to be found in future experiments at the Large Hadron Collider being built at CERN."

The Higgs boson has been called the missing link in the Standard Model of Particles and Fields, the theory that's been used to explain fundamental physics since the 1970s. Prior to 1995 the top quark was also missing, but then the experimental teams working at the Tevatron's two large detector systems, D-Zero and


http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/link/ph22-3.jpg

New measurements of top quark mass at Fermilab have revised estimates for the mass of the Higgs boson.




CDF, were able to discover it independently.

Scientists believe that the Higgs boson, named for Scottish physicist Peter Higgs, who first theorized its existence in 1964, is responsible for particle mass, the amount of matter in a particle. According to the theory, a particle acquires mass through its interaction with the Higgs field, which is believed to pervade all of space and has been compared to molasses that sticks to any particle rolling through it. The Higgs field would be carried by Higgs bosons, just as the electromagnetic field is carried by photons.

"In the Standard Model, the Higgs boson mass is correlated with top quark mass," says Madaras, "so an improved measurement of the top quark mass gives more information about the possible value of the Higgs boson mass."

According to the Standard Model, at the beginning of the universe there were six different types of quarks. Top quarks exist only for an instant before decaying into a bottom quark and a W boson, which means those created at the birth of the universe are long gone. However, at Fermilab's Tevatron, the most powerful collider in the world, collisions between billions of protons and antiprotons yield an occasional top quark. Despite their brief appearances, these top quarks can be detected and characterized by the D-Zero and CDF experiments.

In announcing the D-Zero results, experiment cospokesperson John Womersley said, "An analysis technique that allows us to extract more information from each top quark event that occurred in our detector has yielded a greatly improved precision of plus or minus 5.3 GeV/c2 in the top mass measurement, compared with previous measurements. The new measurement is comparable to the precision of all previous top quark mass measurements put together. When this new result is combined with all other measurements from both the D-Zero and CDF experiments, the new world average for the top mass becomes 178.0 plus or minus 4.3 GeV/c2

The D-Zero detector system consists of a central tracking detector array, a hermetic calorimeter for measuring energy, and a large solid-angle muon detector system. Berkeley Lab designed and built the two electromagnetic end-cap calorimeters and also the initial vertex detector, the innermost component of the tracking system. Tracking detectors supplement calorimeters by measuring particle trajectories. Only when trajectory and energy measurements are combined can scientists identify and characterize particles


http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/link/ph22-5.jpg

Top quarks and other particles are produced when energetic protons and antiprotons collide.




Top quarks and other particles are produced when energetic protons and antiprotons collide.



While raising the central value for the top quark mass appears to diminish the possibility that the Higgs boson could be discovered at the Tevatron, it does open a wider door for new discoveries in supersymmetry, also known as SUSY, an extension of the Standard Model that unites particles of force and matter through the existence of superpartners (sometimes referred to as "sparticles"). Supersymmetry seeks to fill gaps left by the Standard Model.

"The current mass limits or bounds that exclude supersymmetric particles are very sensitive to the top quark mass," says Madaras. "Since the top quark mass is now higher, these limits or bounds are not as severe, which increases the chance of seeing supersymmetric particles at the Tevatron."

Scientists from nearly 40 US universities and 40 foreign institutions contributed to the data analysis reported in the letter to Nature by the D-Zero experimental group. Berkeley Lab co-authors of the letter in addition to Madaras were Mark Strovink, Al Clark, Tom Trippe, and Daniel Whiteson.

Fermilab Director Michael Witherell said in a statement that these results do not end the story of precision measurements of the top quark mass. "The two collider detectors, D-Zero and CDF, are recording large amounts of data in Run II of the Tevatron. The CDF collaboration has recently reported preliminary new measurements of the top mass based on Run II data. The precision of the world average will improve further when their results are final. Over the next few years, both experiments will make increasingly precise measurements of the top quark mass."

Fermilab, like Berkeley Lab, is funded by the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. In response to the Nature letter from the D-Zero group, Raymond L. Orbach, Director of the Office of Science, said: “These important results demonstrate how our scientists are applying new techniques to existing data, producing new estimates for the mass of the Higgs boson. We eagerly await the next round of results from the vast quantities of data that are generated today at the Fermilab Tevatron





Berkeley Lab is a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory located in Berkeley, California. It conducts unclassified scientific research and is managed by the University of California. Fermilab is a national laboratory funded by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy, operated by Universities Research Association, Inc.

Additional information
More about the D-Zero experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab)
More about Fermilab

CPH Theory, Creation Particle Higgs Theory
Introduction

For Newton, the force of gravity was merely a function of masses and the distance between them. For Einstein, gravity was caused by a deformation of space-time continuum. On this basis, he developed a highly complex algebra that merely describes it geometrically. Nowadays the majority of studies explain only the effects of gravity and not its nature.

The unification of gravity with electricity has been a challenge for many great physicists of the last century. Einstein dedicated almost 35 years to the problem without success, while, in 1968, Dirac suggested that it would not be possible to unify the fundamental forces.

Was Dirac right? Isn't a unified force in nature? We know many Physical Scientists had been working hard to find a unified field theory. Also, they predicated many interesting theories. In this field hardest efforts had belonged to String Theory.

I had believed any effort for finding a unified theory without considering conversion of the force and energy does not have any considerable success. In fact there is a unified force/particle in nature. In other words, Force, Energy and Mass had formed a unified fundamental particle that calls CPH in Theory of CPH. In Theory of CPH, Force and Energy are convertible. Also according to Relativity, mass and energy are equivalent. So, Force, Energy and Mass are three manifests of a unified entity that is called CPH. And we should change our perception about force, energy and mass.

Definition of CPH

Suppose there is a particle with mass of m that is moving with speed Vc in an inertial frame. And Vc>c and c is the speed of light. So, its linear momentum gives mVc. (Figure 1). It is Called CPH (Creation Particle Higgs).




http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/link/ph19-9.GIF




Figure 1

Principle of CPH

CPH is a particle with constant mass m and moves with constant speed Vc.

CPH has the momentum of Inertia I. In any interaction between CPH and other particles/forces, the amount of Vc does not change, so;



gradVc=0 in all inertial frames and any space

Explain

According to figure 1, a CPH carries linear momentum of P=mVc. So, CPH has inertia and also has Momentum Inertia I. When an external force is applied on a CPH, then a part of its Linear momentum (P=mVc) converts to angular momentum and CPH takes Spin, so that the amount speed of CPH does not change in any case. When CPH has Spin, it is called GRAVITON. (Figure 2)





http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/link/ph19-10.GIF



Figure 2





When a graviton works on an object/particle, graviton does disappear and converts to energy. Because it is not acceptable that force acts and produces energy; and force does not have any effect on itself while producing energy. All efforts for finding a unified field theory had no success, because physicists do not consider the conversion of force and energy. Also, a graviton acts on another graviton and produces energy. See Figure 3.






http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/link/ph19-11.gif




Figure 3



The picture above shows two gravitons with the mass of m, speed of Vc and linear momentum of P=mVc, in distance of r feel each other. They absorb each other and “r” decreases. But CPH must move with the speed of Vc, so it loses a part of its linear speed and takes Spin.

A Photon is formed by a lot of CPH that they have spin and photon has spin too. So, when a photon is traveling with speed of c, CPH has linear speed of c and it has spin itself, and a speed equal to the speed of the photon (according to the structure of photon).

In a gravitational field, when a photon shifts to blue, gravitons convert to energy. And when the photon shifts to red, energy converts to graviton. And when energy decays, it produces Matter and Anti-Matter. See Figure 4. In fact ever thing formed of CPH.



http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/link/ph19-12.gif



Figure 4



CPH Theory propounded that force and energy is equivalent, so CPH theory may provide the answer. From one principle - that CPH moves with constant amount of speed Vc and gradVc=0 in all inertial frames in any space - CPH theory provides a single explanatory framework capable of encompassing all forces and all matter and anti-matter.

CPH theory proclaims, for instance, all observed particles/objects consist of CPH. They can come in forms of masses, energies, fundamental particles and fundamental forces. The strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity -- are reflections of various ways in which a CPH can move in the same structure of matter or photon. Just as photons or gravitons in empty space, light or gravity effects reach the earth from a very far star.

CPH is pure gravity force. CPH moves with speed of Vc in an inertial frame if no external force is applied on it. When an external force is applied on a CPH, it takes spin and is called graviton. So, Vc equals the speed of graviton (in an inertial frame), when it has no spin.

In fact a CPH is a sub-quanta of existence in nature. CPH has mass that is a manifest of matter; its movement is a manifest of energy. CPH has sub-quanta bounding gravity field around itself.

A CPH feels another CPH by this sub-quanta gravity field. Also, two CPH absorb each other by their sub-quanta fields. See Figure 5.

Photons (and all subatomic particles) are formed by many CPH that they have spin; and photon has spin too. So, when a photon is traveling with speed of c, CPH has a linear speed of c and it has itself spin and a speed equal to the speed of the photon (in the structure of photon or other subatomic particles).






http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/link/ph19-13.GIF






Figure 5



So, quantum energy is formed by a lot of CPH. Also, CPH (gravitons) work on CPH and produces energy. In the other words, force and energy are equivalent. Force converts to energy and energy changes to force. Fore example; force converts to energy in blue-shift and energy converts to force in red-shift.
Two objects/particles (like the moon and the earth, or an electron and a proton in an atom) transfer CPH continuously.

Photo Electric and Compton Effect by CPH

According to CPH theory a photon contains n number of CPH that they are moving with the speed of c in the structure of photons. The given mass of a CPH is m, so its momentum is P=mc and the momentum of photon is P=nmc, see Figure 6.





http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/link/ph19-14.GIF

Figure 6



When a photon collides to an electron, a number of CPH that exist in the photon enter the electron. See Figure 7.




http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/link/ph19-16.gif




Figure 7



In photoelectric effect all CPHs of photon enter the structure of the Electron. Consider that it will happen if the amount of the energy of the photon is sufficient.

In Compton Effect some CPH enter the structure of the photon and other CPHs do not enter.

In the picture above, k>k1 and k2=k-k1 when CPH is joined with the electron.

Spring;
Take a look at spring. There is a spring with one of its sides connected to the wall (Figure 8). In formal physics it is defined by the conversion of potential energy and kinetic energy. Let us explain it according to the conversion of force and energy.






http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/link/ph19-15.JPG




Figure 8




A. The spring is pushed by hand. During the time that hands were pushing the spring, hand's energy converts to force. In fact a lot of CPHs leaves the hand and enters the spring. The momentum of these CPH is transferred to the spring. Hands had lost momentum (and energy), and spring gained momentum and energy. It is such as the following:
example; a wagon has a lot of sand that collides to an empty wagon. Some sands leave the first wagon and enter the empty wagon.

In situation A, F= - kx and its direction is toward the left side and energy equals zero: E=0.

B. Force is converting to energy. Spring will return to its equilibrium situation. Object opposes with the spring's movement. The force of the spring converts to energy and the amount of force decreases and energy increases.

C. No force is applied on an object, but energy is maximum: the Object is moving toward the left side and its energy converts to force.


Gravity

According TO CPH Theory, gravity is a currency among objects. For example consider the interaction between the earth and the moon:
Earth has a gravitational field. The gravitational field is formed by gravitons that are moving toward the earth and they are interacting with each other. Suppose the earth is alone and there are no interactions between earth and other bodies in universe. When gravitons reach the earth, the earth absorbs them. Then gravitons obey all forces around them. But the earth is not alone and it has interaction with other bodies. Take a look at earth and moon. There are two fields; one is around the earth and the other one is around the moon. When a graviton reaches the earth, the other one moves toward the moon and pushes the earth toward the moon. (Remember flow and ebb). Also when a graviton reaches the moon, the other one moves toward the earth and pushes the moon toward the earth. So earth (In fact every thing) is bombarded by gravitons continuously.













Figure 9

If movements in the space are without any gravitational effects, they move linearly with the speed of c (top of Figure 9). But space is full of gravity. So, photons’ paths are like the right side of Figure 9.
Left side of Figure 9 shows that a photon is moving in a gravitational field of a massive body.
In point A, the photon has the speed of c, frequency of f and energy of E that reaches point A. Gravitational field acts on the photon, some gravitons enter the structure of the photon. Photons accelerate toward the massive body. Its frequency, energy and speed increase.
In point B, the photon has a frequency of f1, energy of E1 and speed of c1. During the time that photons are falling, the distance between the photon and body decreases, until it reaches the point G. In point G Frequency, speed and energy are maximum for that photon. When photon reaches point F', it is the same as point F, and so on. In point A' it is the same as point A.
The behavior of photons and gravitational fields is the same as spring and objects. On the left side of Figure 9, when a photon is falling, it shifts to blue and the gravity force converts into energy.
When photon is escaping from a massive body it shifts to red and energy converts to gravity force.
Theory of CPH – the ultimate explanation of the universe at its most microscopic level, a theory that does not rely on any deeper explanation - would provide the firmest foundation on which to build our understanding of the world.







CPH bends space

We know the frequency of photon does change in gravitational field. When gravity force acts on a photon, the energy of the photon increases and its frequency increases too (or decreases). In red-shift work is negative (frequency decreases) and in blue-shift work is positive (frequency increases). When photon is leaving gravitational field, it shifts to red and when photon is falling it shifts to blue. When light is moving in space that there is no gravitational effect, the path of light is linear (figure 10).

Now suppose light is moving in gravitational field of a massive body. Gravity works on it. When distance between photon and massive body goes to short, light shifts to blue like photon is falling. But when distance between photon and massive body goes to long, light shifts to red like photon escapes (Figure 10).















Figure 10





What the inside observer observes is the opposite of what the outside observer observes.

Zero Point Energy

Quantum energy is formed by a lot of CPH. Also, CPH (graviton) works on CPH and produces energy.

It happens when the density of the graviton is high. (Figure 11).

According to the size of a gamma photon and the number of CPH in it, we can calculate the density of CPH in the structure of the photon. The diameter of an electron is less than 10^ -18 m. A gamma photon (in pair production) produces an electron and a positron. Suppose the volume of a photon is 2 times bigger than the electron’s volume.









Figure 11



Suppose that the density of CPH in structure of photon is De(cph)=n per m^3,

Space is full of gravitons. Gravitons have interaction among each other. They absorb each other and convert to electromagnetic wave. When they convert to energy, that density of CPH reaches to

De(cph)=n per m^3.

So, for space we have;

Integral on volume of De(cph)=0 to De(cph)=n per m^3 on dDe(cph) = E , E is electromagnetic energy.











Integration of gravitons is a projection to production electromagnetic energy.

In the other word, force and energy are equivalent. Force converts to energy and energy changes to force.

For more see Theory of CPH and Mathematical Modeh of CPH

Any fresh opinion most welcome

Sincerely

Hossein Javadi

[piersdad]

just as the electromagnetic field is carried by photons.

ive never seen a photon associated with any magnetic field.
exception where ionised photons in the nothhern lights perhaps

Earth has a gravitational field. The gravitational field is formed by gravitons that are moving toward the earth and they are interacting with each other. Suppose the earth is alone and there are no interactions between earth and other bodies in universe. When gravitons reach the earth, the earth absorbs them. Then gravitons obey all forces around them. But the earth is not alone and it has interaction with other bodies. Take a look at earth and moon. There are two fields; one is around the earth and the other one is around the moon. When a graviton reaches the earth, the other one moves toward the moon and pushes the earth toward the moon. (Remember flow and ebb). Also when a graviton reaches the moon, the other one moves toward the earth and pushes the moon toward the earth. So earth (In fact every thing) is bombarded by gravitons continuously.

- If you sit in a car and accelerate at 1 G then the back of your seat will give you a G of weight.
- So if im lying on my back then the earths surface is accelerating me away from the earths centre ??

- The moon being held in the earths gravitational field is accelerated towards the earth by centipetal forces and equally accelerated away by earths gravity

can you explane this with gravitons theory

[scorpio711]

I'm not aware of this CPH theory, Hossein. Is it your own theory? What are your base assumptions? you seem to have as a starting point the classical mechanics? and you reject both Special and general relativity, is that correct? What about quantum physics?
last but not least, shouldn't this post be in the "alternate theories" section?
rgds,
Scorpio

[cph-theory]

Thank you, I think we must reconsider Newton's second law, Relativity and Quantum mechanic at same time

Please see

Theory of CPH (http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/pdf/Unified-CPH-Theory-New.pdf)

Mathematical-Model-CPH (http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/pdf/Mathematical-Model-CPH.pdf)

Sincerely
Hossein Javadi

[scorpio711]

cph, your links do not work , they are clearly broken !!!!!
Scorpio

[cph-theory]

Color charge/Color magnet and CPH

A photon becomes energy-laden by revolving. We know this because the electromagnetic fields around a "ray of light" are electromagnetic waves not static fields. Relativistic ally, the electromagnetic field generated by a photon is much stronger than the associated gravitational field. Further it is not clear at the present time whether the gravitational field of an energy-laden photon is static or oscillatory. It is not understood how the photon generates two sets of fields (electromagnetic and gravitational) of so different intensities. This is an enigma.


Let's take a new look at behavior of electromagnetic wave in a gravitational field, it can help for resolving this enigma.
As we know an electromagnetic wave has form of two vertical electricity field and magnetic field. Figure 1


http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/link/basicwavesjavafigure1.jpg


As General Relativity predicted and experiments show, the frequency of photons change in a gravitational field.
When a photon is falling in a gravitational field, its frequency increases.
What happens in this case?
In totally, gravity force works on photon. According relation:

W=dE

a part of gravity work converts to electricity energy and other part of gravity work converts to magnetic energy. Figure 2

http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/link/E-B-increas.JPG

Figure 2

As I mentioned in top of this page, there is no any explain about this phenomena in theoretical physics.

So, I will explain it by according CPH Theory.

Principle of CPH

CPH is a particle with constant mass m and moves with constant speed Vc.
CPH has the momentum of Inertia I. In any interaction between CPH and other particles/forces, the amount of Vc does not change, so;


gradVc=0 in all inertial frames and any space


A CPH carries linear momentum of P=mVc. So, CPH has inertia and also has Momentum Inertia I. When an external force is applied on a CPH, then a part of its Linear momentum (P=mVc) converts to angular momentum and CPH takes Spin, so that the amount speed of CPH does not change in any case. When CPH has Spin, it is called GRAVITON. (Figure 3)

http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/link/h2.JPG


Figure 3



Color charge and color magnet

When a CPH feels other CPH, they take Spin and calls graviton. A graviton behaves like electricity force and other one behaves like magnetic force, and two vertical electricity field and magnetic field do appear. Figure 4.

http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/link/h3.JPG

Figure 4

The picture above shows two gravitons with the mass of m, speed of Vc and linear momentum of P=mVc, in distance of r feel each other. They absorb each other and “r” decreases. But CPH must move with the speed of Vc, so it loses a part of its linear speed and takes Spin. When CPH takes spin, its color charge or color magnet appears. According graviton has spin, so gravitons are color charge or color magnet.
A Photon is formed by a lot of CPH that they have spin and photon has spin too. So, when a photon is traveling with speed of c, CPH has linear speed of c and it has spin itself, and a speed equal to the speed of the photon (according to the structure of photon).
In a gravitational field, when a photon shifts to blue, gravitons convert to energy. And when the photon shifts to red, energy converts to graviton. And when energy decays, it produces Matter and Anti-Matter. See Figure 5. In fact ever thing formed of CPH.

http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/link/h4.JPG

Figure 5


In fact a CPH is a sub-quanta of existence in nature. CPH has mass that is a manifest of matter; its movement is a manifest of energy. CPH has sub-quanta bounding Color charge or Color magnet field around itself.
A CPH feels another CPH, when they contact or they are very near ( a distance like Plank Length that is equal 1.6x10-35 m). In this case their color charge/color magnet are able act on each other and do combine. Figure 6.
Photons (and all subatomic particles) are formed by many CPH that they have spin; and photon has spin too. So, when a photon is traveling with speed of c, CPH has a linear speed of c and it has itself spin and a speed equal to the speed of the photon (in the structure of photon or other subatomic particles).


http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/link/h5.JPG



Figure 6

Gravity
According TO CPH Theory, gravity is a currency among objects. For example consider the interaction between the earth and the moon:
Earth has a gravitational field. The gravitational field is formed by gravitons that are moving toward the earth and they are interacting with each other. Suppose the earth is alone and there are no interactions between earth and other bodies in universe. When gravitons reach the earth, the earth absorbs them. Then gravitons obey all forces around them. But the earth is not alone and it has interaction with other bodies. Take a look at earth and moon. There are two fields; one is around the earth and the other one is around the moon. When a graviton reaches the earth, the other one moves toward the moon and pushes the earth toward the moon. (by its color charge or color magnet). Also when a graviton reaches the moon, the other one moves toward the earth and pushes the moon toward the earth. So earth (In fact every thing) is bombarded by gravitons continuously.



Sincerely

Hossein Javadi

Email me

My Webpage (http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/pdf/Unified-CPH-Theory-New.pdf)

My Webpage (http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/pdf/Mathematical-Model-CPH.pdf)

[czeslaw]

Does your idea violate a principle of the energy conservation ? How do you transfer force (Newton) into energy (Joule) ? Isn’t your force just a potential energy ?

[cph-theory]

Thank you for your reply

There is conservation law force-energy-mass in CPH Theory

Idea about potential energy is not able explain relationshop between fermions and bosons well.

[cph-theory]

Leibniz's Monads and Javadi's CPH

Sam Ghandchi

http://www.ghandchi.com/394-MonadsCPHEng.htm

http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/link/cph01.jpg

Persian Version

http://www.ghandchi.com/394-MonadsCPH.htm





Recently I had the pleasure of studying a new TOE (Theory of Everything) called CPH [http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/hjavadi/CPH-English.htm]. CPH has been proposed by an Iranian physicist by the name of Hossein Javadi [http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/hjavadi/index.html]. Mr. Javadi's theory reminds me of Leibniz's Monadology, a model of the world with a tilt to pluralism [http://www.ghandchi.com/301-PluralismEng.htm]. Leibniz's pluralism is closer to the pluralism of atomists (from Democritus to Russell), than to the pluralism of Aristotle.



Aristotle, in contrast to the atomists, as I have discussed in details in my paper The Status of Monism and Pluralism in Aristotle's Metaphysics [http://www.ghandchi.com/392-AristotleEng.htm], views pluralism as a conceptual notion, where the "order of explanation" is monistic, whereas the "order of sense", is pluralistic. In that paper I summarized Aristotle's view as follows:

"...[For Aristotle,] there is a hierarchy of concepts that refers to concrete things and in the order of explanation, the universals are first and particulars are last, whereas in the order of sensation, the particulars come first and universals are the last. In the order of sensation, the most fundamental concept is substance which is followed by the concepts of unity (or being) and first principles. In the order of explanation, it is the opposite and first principles are the primary concepts followed by unity (or being) and substance...To discover whether plurality or unity are primary in Aristotle’s metaphysics, we should ask which one is prior in the order of sensation, because Aristotle, in all his philosophy, gives primacy to the sensible things rather than to the abstract ideas...Aristotle writes in his Physics “The universal is more knowable in the order of explanation, the particular in the order of sense [Book I, 189a 5-10, BW, p.228].” Based on the two interpretations of Aristotle’s metaphysics in this paper, plurality is next to particulars and unity is next to the universals. Therefore, plurality has primacy in the world as it is, and unity has primacy in our ideas and explanations. In other words, unity is the farthest from the perceptive reality and may be even subjective, and plurality is the closest to the perceptive reality and is the state of objective reality. Thus I can conclude that pluralism is what is defended in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, though as I explained, with all the intricacies of Aristotle’s unique metaphysical scheme [http://www.ghandchi.com/392-AristotleEng.htm]."

Leibniz's Monadology has fascinated me for years, ever since reading about it the first time in Bertrand Russell's works twenty five years ago. I thoroughly discussed Bertrand Russell's own philosophy of Logical Atomism in Logical Atomism: A Paradigm or a Lost Cause [http://www.ghandchi.com/393-RussellAtomismEng.htm]. The following is what I wrote in that paper about the similar challenge of Leibniz's Monadology and Russell's Philosophy of Logical Atomism:

"...the subjective notion of truth is objectified when he [Bertrand Russell] claims that the truth of the world can be reduced to “facts that make up the truths of the world.” This was very similar to Leibniz’s Monadology where the subjective notion of mind was *objectified* by monads. The atoms relating to the truth in the objective world, according to logical atomism, are not particulars, relations, or qualities; but a unique unity of them corresponds to the truth, i.e. the atomic facts. Thus, these atomic facts, though complex, are not reducible to their parts as if the objectification of truth is a ghost holding them together [http://www.ghandchi.com/393-RussellAtomismEng.htm]."

It is interesting to remember how Leibniz was so much perturbed with the concept of *action at a distance* in Newton's gravitational theory to the point of ending up in the wicked arguments with Newton. In fact, their fight about calculus was not a difference about theory, but was rather about who invented calculus first, whereas their disputes about action at a distance were their real *disagreements* which were even raised to a theological dispute.



Javadi is also trying to answer the issue of action at a distance by his theory of transformation of the vector quantity force and the scalar quantity energy, when he shows a quantum of work can be defined by a quantum of force multiplied by Planck's Length (Wq=Fg.Lp). Thus just like Leibniz, for Javadi, there is no action at a distance, and the space is filled with gravitons, that interact with each other. For Javadi, the gravitons are nothing but the CPH when it has a spin, and CPH (Creation Particle Higgs) is the basic particle of the world with constant mass moving at constant speed in an inertial frame.



In other words, the whole world is a simple five dimensional world (spin is considered a dimension). Javadi's model, not only explains the inconsistencies of quantum mechanics and relativistic theory, it even explains classical issues better than the 10-dimensional model of string theory. For example, force being a vector quantity, means that the conservation of momentum conserves in all three physical directions at the same time, whereas mass and energy being scalar quantities, means the conservation of mass and energy conserve one-dimensionally, at least when dealing with them in classical mechanics. Javadi's model, through the transformation of force and energy, makes these fundamental concepts of physics identical. Eventually the CPH Theory, makes the main challenge of modern physics, the unification of the three forces of nature possible.



Of course, I should also note that from the technology standpoint, the success of nanotechnology (http://www.ghandchi.com/306-NanoEng.htm) is one of the best corroboration of atomism, because nanotechnology is nothing but rebuilding the whole nature artificially "atom by atom" as Feynman said it in his 1959 speech. Moreover, let's remember what Bertrand Russell wrote of analysis:

"One purpose that has run through all that I have said, has been the justification of analysis, i.e. the justification of logical atomism, of the view that you can get down in theory, if not in practice, to ultimate simple, out of which the world is built, and that those simples have a kind of reality not belonging to anything else [Russell, Bertrand, The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, LK, p. 270]."

Below I present my own analysis of Leibniz's Monadology, from the viewpoint of philosophy of science, hoping that while the discussions of CPH theory continue in the physics community, I can help similar discussions about the philosophical model of CPH theory to start in the circles of philosophy of science [http://www.ghandchi.com/358-falsafehElm-plus.htm].





Overview of Leibniz's Monads from a Philosophical Perspective



In the opening of "Principles of Nature and Grace" [Leibniz, G.W., Philosophical Papers and Letters, Leroy Loemkev Edition, University of Chicago, 1956, Vol. II, p.1033-4], Leibniz defines ‘substance’ in a Cartesian style as ‘a being capable of action;’ and ‘simple substance’ as ‘that which has no parts.’ Then Monads are introduced as equivalent to ‘simple substances’ and he continues by asserting “Monas is a Greek word signifying unity or that which is one.’ Plato refers to Mind as *the* Monad [Aristotle, De Anima, The Basic Works of Aristotle, Richard Mc Keon Edition, 1941, P.540] and most commentators think that Leibniz, contrary to Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes (his principle inspirers), has actually made mind divisible in his metaphysic and has presumed its parts as Monads. Thus, it is believed that the nature of Monads is mental. On the other hand, Leibniz’s referring to Monads as ‘true Atoms of nature’ [Leibniz, Monadology, George Montgomery's Translation, Open Court Publ, Illinois, 1980, P.251] bears a certain resemblance to ancient Greek atomism. Nevertheless, most commentators agree that Leibniz’s Monads differ from the atomists’ atoms insofar as the former do not embody extension whereas the latter do, i.e. the Monads are not geometrical points and are metaphysical points [Copleston, Frederick, A History of Philosophy, Vol. IV, The Newman Press, Maryland, 1960, P.266]. Therefore, despite the undeniable resemblance of Monadology to atomism is undeniable, the nature of these "atoms" (i.e. the Monads) remains to be investigated separately and I will do this scrutiny in the following lines.



Revealing the differences and similarities of Leibniz' s Monads with Plato’s Forms, Aristotle’s substances, and Descartes' simple substances is not enough to fathom the nature of Monads. Various commentators stressing the different qualities of Monads alleged in Leibniz’s numerous works have mostly proposed these elements to be mental and some even believed them to be material elements. In my opinion, the problem of these commentators is that they are limited to the framework of Western philosophy in which ultimate reduction is either mental or material and this fact has been the reason for futile attempts to classify Leibniz as an idealist or a materialist. Although Leibniz was essentially familiar with Western philosophy and certainly Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes had great influence on his thought, nonetheless his speculations about the nature of simple substances (Monads), is unique and in a sense resembles some of the Eastern philosophies.



I think it is evident from the book Monadology that Monads are the basic blocks or the atoms of the world. That this reductionism was accepted by Leibniz can be gathered from his presumption of the world to have ‘true atoms.’ Thus, the question is what is the nature of his reductionism-is it materialist, idealist, or is it something else? Materialists reduce all reality to some kind of material principle and synthesize the world from this principle, e.g. some of the modern atomists presume the atomic particles (or sub-atomic particles) as the basic blocks of the world and biological elements (like DNA or RNA) or mental elements (neurons) are assumed to be ultimately comprised of material sub-atomic particles (i.e. electrons, mesons, etc.). The idealists reduce all reality to some kind of mental principle and synthesize the world from this principle, e.g. the subjective idealists consider everything to be in our mind and some quantum physicists similarly believe that the existence of electrons depends on our thought. The foregoing may be regarded as a brief sketch of materialism and idealism in Modern philosophy and science.



In the East, especially in Indian philosophy (e.g. Vedanta philosophical systems), there is another kind of reductionism, almost unbeknownst to Western concepts, which we may call biological reductionism. In this thought, the ultimate biological elements are not molecules of ultimate material elements. Instead, the ultimate material elements (e.g. electrons) are comprised of ultimate biological elements (whatever they may be called). From such a perspective, electrons are even more "biologically" ultimate than RNA/DNA, and still the ultimate biological elements are to be found in the elements comprising electrons, in short the ultimate biological element are the building blocks of even the electron and sub-atomic particles. Probably, if we would like to express such an ideology today, the best word for the ultimate element would still be Entelechy, the word that Leibniz used interchangeably for Monad.



I think the above is the crux of Leibniz’s theory of the nature of Monads. The Monads are neither mental nor material, but rather they are biological, that is the ultimate blocks of the world are biological elements--Entelechies. Entelechy was postulated by Aristotle in his biology, but for Aristotle, Entelechy was not prior to material elements. Leibniz borrowed the word but changed its status, elevating it to the supreme position of the ultimate constituent of the world. Using this conception of basic elements of the world, he views ‘matter’ as described below:

"Every portion of matter may be conceived as like a garden full of plants, and like a pond full of fish. But every branch of a plant, every member of an animal, and every drop of the fluids within it, is also such a garden or such a pond [Leibniz, G.W., Monadology, Ibid., P.266]."

The above perspective is so common among many pantheistic schools of the East that occasionally some mystic philosophers can be found *talking* to stones or other inanimate objects. Actually, the above obliterates the distinction between inanimate and animate objects by making everything animate. Moreover, Leibniz considers Entelechy as being also the basic element of Soul or Mind and clarifies it:

"If we wish to designate as soul everything which has perceptions and desires in the general sense that I have just explained, all simple substances or created Monads could be called souls. But since feeling is something more than a mere perception I think that the general name of Monad or Entelechy should suffice for simple substances which have only perception while we may reserve the term Soul for those whose perception is more distinct and accompanied by memory [Ibid., P.255]."

In other words, Soul is just a kind of Entelechy and he later assumes it to be the ‘dominating Entelechy’ of animals [Ibid., P.267]. The above thoughts have led to Leibniz’s fantastic belief that "...animals and souls begin from the very commencement of the world [Ibid., P.270]". Also his belief in metamorphosis [Ibid., P.267], and his final word which very much resembles the Eastern immortality of organism rather than the Western immortality of the soul. He writes:

"I believe, therefore, that if the animal never actually commences in nature, no more does it by natural means come to an end. Not only is there no generation, but also there is no entire destruction or absolute death [Ibid., P.268]."

The biological nature of Monads makes their essential qualities to be *apperception* and *appetition* and even motion itself [Leibniz, G.W., Principles of Nature and Grace, Philosophical Papers and Letters, Vol. II, P.1034-36]. Moreover, their relations are not by efficient causes (monads are ‘windowless’) and they are related by final causes. This is why he considers final causes as the principle of efficient causes and gives priority to final causes [Ibid., P. 1040]. His God is *not* the Unifier but rather the Harmonizer of the world of Monads. Even this concept in Leibniz, which separates him from his colleague and contemporary Spinoza, very much approaches some Eastern pantheists’ beliefs in Harmony rather than a Western view of Unity of the world. The views that give primacy to final causes and their refutation by Spinoza have been discussed in details in Sufism and Fatalism [http://www.ghandchi.com/354-SufismEng.htm]. The intricacies of Leibniz’s metaphysical scheme and its relations to the nature of Monads shows why he arrived at the picture of the world as the "City of God" with a dominant monarch, God, as the ultimate Monad and the Creator of this world.



Sam Ghandchi, Editor/Publisher

IRANSCOPE

http://www.iranscope.com

April 3, 2005



Related Articles:

Secularism & Pluralism-Essays

http://www.ghandchi.com/600-SecularismPluralismEng.htm

[cph-theory]

Sorry, you are correct, please try wit

Theory of CPH (http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/pdf/Unified-CPH-Theory-New.pdf)

Mathematical Model of CPH (http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/pdf/Mathematical-Model-CPH.pdf)

Color Charge and Color Magnet (http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/link/Color.charge-and-magnet.htm)

sincerely
Hossein Javadi


Theory of CPH

Mathematical-Model-CPH

[Nereid]

What specific, concrete, testable predictions do you make Hossein Javadi, that are different from what mainstream physics predicts?

[Josh]

CPH-Theory, Please keep all further "CPH theory" posts to the one thread. Thanks

[cph-theory]

Dear Josh

Greetings;
ok, thank you

Sincerely
Hossein Javadi

[light_rock]

FYI -

Hossein's CPH Theory boils down to a "gas" of discrete "basic elements" which are kinetic with a "total E value" which is expressed as a percentage of Spin vs. Velocity.

CPH are 'the basic ingredient of everything' via the interaction of these 'particles'
and their exchange of orientation, and also exchange in variation of the proportioned Spin/Velocity properties.

Hossein does not disagree with general relativity.

He has a proposed idea for a singular basic building block,
or "God Particle" as the term has been coined.

CPH are extremely small and extremely fast, and are a "minimal unit" of "quantized exchange". So fast are they, that they are superluminal, "light" being "emergent" of their "behavior" or a "computational division" of the superluminal value by "adjacent interaction". - or "Light is the speed of interaction" not "the core speed" of a CPH.

The word "superluminal" is somehow and therefore, an expression of "internal clock speed" of a CPH. - so to speak...

CPH Theory at this point is an expression of "The Principle".

As a principle, Hossein has a rather elegant archetype of "Spacetime as a gas"
with expressions of both "The effect of gravity" and Electro-Magnetism.

So far what is missing are formulations of "standing interactions" which we would recognize as fundamental particles such as electrons, positrons, etc.,

Hossein would welcome any constructive ideas as to the Rules and Methods
necessary for the "Standing Relationships" of "matter" according to this
principle.

You will find Hossein to be of rather exceptionally fine character, and an excellent example of "being a good person".

This is my understanding of CPH, in my own native language, in the hopes that this may help "digest" the "bombshell" Hossein is Dropping...

Ultimately, The exact means whereby Energy converts to Force and Force converts to Energy.

( Of course, if it works... )

So take some shots, but that is hard to do at this stage of the formulation,
and a mere expression of pure principle...

Maybe ponder this a bit and offer some brainstorming on how to go on to some next steps.

Sincerely,

One of many Friends of Hossein

Allen Francom
light_rock@yahoo.com

[cph-theory]

Sub Quantum Chromodynamics SQCD


Introduction;
Quantum chromodynamics, familiarly called QCD, is the modern theory of the strong interaction. Historically its roots are in nuclear physics and the description of ordinary matter--understanding what protons and neutrons are and how they interact.
In the same pictorial language, QCD appears as an expanded version of QED. Whereas in QED there is just one kind of charge, QCD has three different kinds of charge, labeled by "color." Avoiding chauvinism, we might choose red, green, and blue. But, of course, the color charges of QCD have nothing to do with physical colors. Rather, they have properties analogous to electric charge. In particular, the color charges are conserved in all physical processes, and there are photon-like massless particles, called color gluons, that respond in appropriate ways to the presence or motion of color charge, very similar to the way photons respond to electric charge.

Quarks and gluons
One class of particles that carry color charge are the quarks. We know of six different kinds, or "flavors," of quarks--denoted u, d, s, c, b, and t, for: up, down, strange, charmed, bottom, and top. Of these, only u and d quarks play a significant role in the structure of ordinary matter. The other, much heavier quarks are all unstable. A quark of any one of the six flavors can also carry a unit of any of the three color charges. Although the different quark flavors all have different masses, the theory is perfectly symmetrical with respect to the three colors.

For all their similarities, however, there are a few crucial differences between QCD and QED. First of all, the response of gluons to color charge, as measured by the QCD coupling constant, is much more vigorous than the response of photons to electric charge. Second, as shown in the box, in addition to just responding to color charge, gluons can also change one color charge into another. All possible changes of this kind are allowed, and yet color charge is conserved. So the gluons themselves must be able to carry unbalanced color charges. For example, if absorption of a gluon changes a blue quark into a red quark, then the gluon itself must have carried one unit of red charge and minus one unit of blue charge.



Sub Quantum Chromodynamics

What means sub quantum chromodynamic?

The fundamental particles of the universe that physicists have identified - photon, electron, neutrino, quark and so on, are the letters of all matter. Just like their linguistic counterparts, they appear to have no further internal substructure. CPH theory proclaims otherwise. According to CPH theory, if we could examine these particles with greater precision beyond our present technological capacity, We would find that each is not point-like but, instead consists of a tiny particles containing a lot of sub-quanta field particle that is moving, oscillating, dancing that calls CPH (Creation Particle Higgs).

Everythings such as photons are formed of CPH. An electromagnetic wave is moving with two different fields (electric field and magnetic field) that have two different properties. These fields contaion a lots of tiny particles that are able to form electric field and magnetic field. But, these particles are so small that cannot appear like a charge particle or a magnet, and they called color charge and color maget. So, these tiny particles are Sub Quantum Chromodynamics.



Full Story (http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/link/SQCD.htm)



Sincerely

Hossein Javadi

Yahoo CPH Group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cph_theory)

[cph-theory]

My dear friend Allen

Greetings;
You explained CPH gas very well, thank you.
I appreciate your work on CPH Theory.

Sincerely
Hossein Javadi

[Nereid]

Hossein does not disagree with general relativity.
So, are there ANY differences between the two, in terms of what we can observe (either in the distant universe, or in experiments in the lab)?

If not, then why throw out GR in favour of CPH?

If there are, what are they?
So far what is missing are formulations of "standing interactions" which we would recognize as fundamental particles such as electrons, positrons, etc.
OK, you've issued your invitation - let's see if anyone wants to help.

To what extent is CPH consistent with Quantum Field Theory? For example, is CPH's relationship to QFT the same as its relationship to GR (i.e. no observable differences)?

Until we have some answers to the above questions, I'd like to ask that there be no more lengthy posts here.

[cph-theory]

Originally posted by scorpio711@Apr 8 2005, 04:50 PM
I'm not aware of this CPH theory, Hossein. Is it your own theory? What are your base assumptions? you seem to have as a starting point the classical mechanics? and you reject both Special and general relativity, is that correct? What about quantum physics?
last but not least, shouldn't this post be in the "alternate theories" section?
rgds,
Scorpio
Hi Dear

Yes, its mine.
I propounded it many years ago.
I ask you please join to yahoo CPH group and send your opinion to more than 400 guys.

Sincerely
Hossein Javadi
Yahoo CPH Group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cph_theory)

[cph-theory]

Originally posted by Nereid@Apr 25 2005, 12:26 AM
Hossein does not disagree with general relativity.
So, are there ANY differences between the two, in terms of what we can observe (either in the distant universe, or in experiments in the lab)?

If not, then why throw out GR in favour of CPH?

If there are, what are they?
So far what is missing are formulations of "standing interactions" which we would recognize as fundamental particles such as electrons, positrons, etc.
OK, you've issued your invitation - let's see if anyone wants to help.

To what extent is CPH consistent with Quantum Field Theory? For example, is CPH's relationship to QFT the same as its relationship to GR (i.e. no observable differences)?

Until we have some answers to the above questions, I'd like to ask that there be no more lengthy posts here.
CPH developed QFT to sub quantums.
In fact CPH Theory combined chalassical mechanic, Relativity and quantum mechanic.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by cph-theory+Apr 26 2005, 02:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (cph-theory @ Apr 26 2005, 02:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Nereid@Apr 25 2005, 12:26 AM
Hossein does not disagree with general relativity.
So, are there ANY differences between the two, in terms of what we can observe (either in the distant universe, or in experiments in the lab)?

If not, then why throw out GR in favour of CPH?

If there are, what are they?
So far what is missing are formulations of "standing interactions" which we would recognize as fundamental particles such as electrons, positrons, etc.
OK, you've issued your invitation - let's see if anyone wants to help.

To what extent is CPH consistent with Quantum Field Theory? For example, is CPH's relationship to QFT the same as its relationship to GR (i.e. no observable differences)?

Until we have some answers to the above questions, I'd like to ask that there be no more lengthy posts here.
CPH developed QFT to sub quantums.
In fact CPH Theory combined chalassical mechanic, Relativity and quantum mechanic. [/b][/quote]
OK, so may we regard CPH as a 'theory of everything'? I.e., like M-Theory/String-Theory, or perhaps like Loop Quantum Gravity (though I'm not sure the proponents would be so bold as to call LQG a TOE)?

I see that you also haven't answered my question about what specific, testable predictions CPH makes (other than those which GR and QFT also make).

Do you have a reference to where CPH has been published in a peer-reviewed physics journal?

[cph-theory]

Theory Of CPH


The greatest problem in theoretical physics is how quantum theory and general relativity are combinable? Scientists describe the universe in terms of two basic partial theories - the general relativity and quantum mechanics... The general theory of relativity describes the force of gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe. Quantum mechanics, on the other hands, deals with phenomena on extremely small scales. These two theories are known to be inconsistent with each other - they cannot both be correct. There are many ways to do combine these theories and many theories such as Loop Quantum Theory and String Theory had propounded.

But Theory of CPH (Theory of Creation Fundamental Particle Boson Higgs) takes a new way. CPH Theory has reconsidered 4 theories (Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity and Higg). In fact CPH Theory is a new looking and developing of Quantum Chromodynamic. So, CPH Theory is a Sub Quantum Chromodynamic theory.


Why CPH Theory have propounded?


CPH Stands of: Creation Particle Higgs, in CPH theory we will study how the fundamental particles were created. The second CPH Theory is based on a
D
efinition of CPH and a simply principle. Also, in discussion with my dear colleagues and other guys, I found understanding the properties of CPH and CPH principle needs a little assiduity. Please do attend that CPH properties come of theoretical physic’s ambiguities and experimental conceptions, that have explain in section two. In this section I will give you the logical reasons that had make the CPH theory foundation. In section three you will see definition and principle of CPH. Section four has a few analyses about CPH Theory. Others sections belong to explaining the modern physics ambiguities by CPH theory. In fact CPH theory is an empiric and sensibility theory. And it does different CPH Theory with other theories.

Experimental Foundation of CPH Theory

Many physicists, such as Faraday and Planck noted the great similarities between electric fields and gravity. If a unified field theory can be found, someone must resolve whether or not it is based on particles and gravity fields or electromagnetic fields. But CPH theory is some in between these two concepts.

CPH Theory started of relationship between force and energy. Photon appears to have no further internal substructure. But many phenomenon's as Compton Effect, pair production, red-shift and blue-shift… show photon has a structure.

We know there is a unit informer in universe that is photon, and all of our information’s of universe transfer by photon. Until we do not know everything about photon and its structure, our information’s about universe is questionable.

Theory of CPH have proclaimed by a simply definition of CPH and a principle that calls CPH Principle. By a looking, seems Definition and principle of CPH are understandable easy, but in discussion with other physicist I found for understanding CPH Theory, it needs to time and precision. Because traveling our mind of quantum mechanics and relativity word to sub-quantum area has combined with its difficulties.



Color charge and magnet color

A photon becomes energy-laden by revolving. We know this because the electromagnetic fields around a "ray of electromagnetic" are electromagnetic waves not static fields.
According TO CPH Theory, gravity is a currency among objects. For example consider the interaction between the earth and the moon:
Earth has a gravitational field. The gravitational field is formed by gravitons that are moving toward the earth and they are interacting with each other. Suppose the earth is alone and there are no interactions between earth and other bodies in universe. When gravitons (in fact color charge) reach the earth, the earth absorbs them. Look at a positive color-charge that reaches to an atom on the earth. Its effect is positive charge, so absorb with an electron. This positive color charge is not able annihilates the electron’s charge, and does disarrange the conserving of electron’s charge. So, electron excretes positive color-charge. But positive color charge has positive effect charge and pulls the electron behind of it Analyses of CPH Theory.) toward the moon. Also when a graviton reaches the moon, the same projection happens on the moon. So, every thing is bombarded by gravitons continuously.



Maxwell Equations in Gravitational Field

As explain before, when photon is falling in a gravitational field, gravitons behave like charge field and magnet field, and they are called color-charge magnet-color. So, there is an especial relationship between electromagnetic waves and gravity. As we know electromagnetic waves subordinate of Maxwell equations. So, depending gravity and electromagnetic waves should subordinate of equations like Maxwell equations. Question is that how we can find these equations? We can do according Color-charge and magnetic-color.



CPH bends space

Now suppose light is moving in gravitational field of a massive body. Gravity works on it. When distance between photon and massive body goes to short, light shifts to blue like photon is falling. But when distance between photon and massive body goes to long, light shifts to red like photon escapes



Absolute Black holes

A massive body first eats matter, then eats light (it is a block hole), and the end eats gravity. It is an absolute black hole. According to CPH Theory every thing is formed by CPH and nucleus is formed by CPH too. CPHs are moving with a spin near each other in structure of nucleus. CPH has Spin and transferring movement so its amount speed is constant and equals

For all CPH Theory articles with formats PDF DOC and HTM see:

The General Science Journal

http://www.wbabin.net/

CPH Theory site;

http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/C1122-gsj.htm

http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/eCPH-Theory.pdf

http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/C1090-ebookcph.htm

[Nereid]

Back in April, 2005, in the post immediately before the cph-theory post of 17 May 2006, I asked:I see that you also haven't answered my question about what specific, testable predictions CPH makes (other than those which GR and QFT also make).What specific, testable predictions does CPH make (other than those which GR and QFT also make)?