Note:  The formulas presented in this article are "scratch work", that is, it is very rough development notes.  Part Three of this series provides a more formal description of the foundations and everyone should really begin there.  For a more accurate sense of the math, refer to this post. - 03/07/12

Well, if you survived the first article, then right about now you should be standing a very weird world where it is difficult to discern one thing from another.  Welcome to the world of uncertainty.  Many people equate uncertainty with the inability to make a correct measurement.  Whilst this is accurate, uncertainty extends to every aspect of life in this world.  So much so, that we cannot say what a particle or photon is with certainty.  It is probable that a particle is a photon, that space is mass, time is voltage and so forth.  We have therefore changed our frame of reference from the macro world where such determinations can be made, to the world of quantum mechanics.

This should go some way to explaining the goal of the first article.  It was to smash your classical viewpoint that objects are rigid, can be isolated and classified into neat groups based upon their properties.  That is the lie of the macro world.  Further, it was to teach you about a very important concept, quantum compatibility.  For energy exchanges to occur at the quantum level, everything must produce and accept energy.  As this energy can transition through a wide range of matter, it must be composed of a material common to all.  In this way, everything else becomes about routing.

In this respect, perhaps it would be easier for everyone to see the value e/s as Energy (or the Joule).  The unit  itself is universal and saying it is Charge, Second, Kilograms and working from that perspective is equally as valid.  This is the mathematics of uncertainty.

In short, you can't feed cheese to a brick.

Another cliff is coming up, prepare for descent.

V = I

Let's begin this article by addressing an issue that caused the most headaches for quite a few engineers.  The claim that when R = 0, then V = I.

Is this correct?

If you had read the comments in the last article, I pointed out that if R = 0 it would not exist.  Unlike mathematics, which would define this value as zero, in reality there is no such thing as zero.  Zero is an imaginary construct, a mathematical phantom.  In an equation such as V = IR, if any element is zero it no longer has a role in the relationship.  Consider this:

V = 0A x 1Ohm

In this "classical" equation we would say that no current flowing across a resistor of 1 Ohm produces no voltage drop.  Now consider this modified equation:

V = 1Ohm

This follows the same logic as V = I.  The result tells us that there is a voltage drop of 1 Volt across the resistor.  This value is the "intrinsic" voltage drop which exists independently of flowing current.  It is the same voltage drop that would be experienced with a 1 Amp current flowing through it.

To demonstrate this concept further, let's consider Einstein's formula:

E = MC^2

This is a mathematical relationship that is similar to V=IR.  What would happen if M were zero?

E = 0 x c^2

The formula tells us that no Energy would exist.  Now we know that to be ridiculous, Mass does not need to exist for there to be Energy.  A photon is the perfect example.  Now, I know the first argument to appear will be "but this is the Mass-Energy equivalence".  The problem is that this formula is not restricted to that, nor is this formula complete/accurate.  The full formula would include matter without Mass as they are also factors of E.  In such an equation, if Mass were allowed to have a zero value, E would not reflect the energy of the matter without Mass.

That is certainly food for thought.

Let's look at a different equation and check if this reveals anything.  We will examine the formula for speed:

Speed = Distance / Time

In classical mathematics, if there was zero distance then this formula would not make sense, however, let's drop Distance from the formula and see what happens:

Speed (e/s) =  Time (e/s)
1 e/s =  1 e/s

It becomes clearer what we are looking at.  Even though there is no distance, there is still Energy in Time and, as a result, there is also Energy in speed.  The output of the formula is showing us the Energy, but not what form it is taking.  This must be derived from the units on the right-hand side of the equation. 

If we now think of the equality operator an addition operator, we can sum both sides.  Thus, the formula now states that the total energy is 2 e/s.

At this point I need to take a detour an explain something fundamental.  Sometimes e/s can refer to independent particles, sometimes a collection, a field, a photon, a polarity, energy, etc.  It is DELIBERATELY ambiguous, or "uncertain".

So, in this case we know we are talking about particles, thus we can define 2 e/s as two particles of Time.  This is interpreted as "two particles and two units of time is equal to 2 e/s".  Thus, we can state that one particle of time is 1 e/s.  We will prove this another way later in this article.

(Note:  This section has been replaced by notes in the comments due to developments in the theory. 28/06/12 - Refer to Additional Note 1)

In condensed matter physics, this is known as a Cooper Pair, BCS pair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_pair

I know what you are thinking, "but this shouldn't work"...

I'll forward your complaint to the managers of reality and demand that they obey our imaginary concepts in mathematics. :)

So, in this context we need a new operator that denotes this new function.  This will be the ? symbol:

V ?+= I

I will call it Tao-summation-addition and it means to sum the equivalences.  This name will make sense at the end of the article. 

(Note:  This section has been replaced by notes in the comments due to developments in the theory. 28/06/12 - Refer to Additional Note 1)

Its function is to replace the notion of zero in roles where values must be conserved.

So, now we have a solid explanation of the discovery and assertions of the first article.  Due to the ambiguity, it was very unclear what we were looking at and it was initially interpreted as being a voltage.  The key, I have found, is to cross-reference everything with established science and ensure that you have the correct interpretation.

Redefinition

Before we get into this, if you have not read the first article, then do so now.  None of this will make sense without doing so.  For those that have read the article, I would recommend a re-read now that you have the above information.

At the and of the article, I left everyone with the following values to convert into Elementary Charge.

Ohm = (meter sq x kilogram) ÷ (second x coulomb sq)
Ohm = joule ÷ (second x ampere sq)
Ohm = (kilogram x meter sq) ÷ (second cubed x ampere sq)
Ohm = (joule x second) ÷ (coulomb sq)

Let's have a quick look at the values you should have arrived at

Positive Charge

1 e/s = (3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 e/s ^2 x 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s) ÷ (1 e/s x 6,241,509,752,302,814,385.3767518217063 e/s ^2)

1 e/s = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s ÷ (1 e/s x  (6.24150965×10^18 e/s ^2))

1 e/s = (3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s x 3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 e/s ^2) ÷ (1 e/s ^3 x (6.24150965×10^18 e/s ^2))

1 e/s = (3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s x 1 e/s) ÷ (6,241,509,752,302,814,385.3767518217063 e/s ^2)

 

Negative Charge

1 -e/s = (3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 -e/s ^2 x 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 -e/s) ÷ (1 -e/s x 6,241,509,752,302,814,385.3767518217063 -e/s ^2)

1 -e/s = 3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 -e/s ÷ (1 e/s x  (6.24150965×10^18 -e/s ^2))

1 -e/s = (3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 -e/s x 3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 -e/s ^2) ÷ (1 -e/s ^3 x (6.24150965×10^18 -e/s ^2))

1 -e/s = (3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 -e/s x 1 -e/s) ÷ (6,241,509,752,302,814,385.3767518217063 -e/s ^2)

Most systems contain a mix of positive and negative charge, thus calculating something like resistance can be incredibly complex.  Now, for the astute I am sure you are seeing things like negative Mass, negative Time, etc., in the above formulas.  This is fine, it will begin to make some sense later in this article and become more comfortable to work with as we progress through the series.

Firstly, we are going to reduce the number of formulas related to the Ohm by eliminating the Coulomb.  As we can see from the above examples, it has the same value as the Ampere.  Now some will argue that the Coulomb measures Charge, whereas the Ampere measures rate of Charge.  In the real world, there is no difference due to uncertainty (this is complex to get).  The Coulomb is a "classical" notion based upon a static model, which does not exist.  It is an "imaginary" construct.  Terms such as static fields, or static electricity are misleading because of uncertainty.  All fields and voltages are time-varying to some degree.  Further in the units of e/s we are always referring to Charges in motion, rather than defined numbers of them.  Thus, we can reduce the formulas to the following:

Positive

Resistance (e/s) = (Mass (e/s) x (Distance (e/s) ^2)) ÷ ((Time (e/s) ^3) x (Current (e/s) ^2))

Resistance (e/s) = Energy (e/s) ÷ (Time (e/s) x (Current (e/s ^ 2))

 

Negative

Resistance (-e/s) = (Mass (-e/s) x (Distance (-e/s) ^2)) ÷ ((Time (-e/s) ^3) x (Current (-e/s) ^2))

Resistance (-e/s) = Energy (-e/s) ÷ (Time (-e/s) x (Current (-e/s ^ 2))

This now gives the formula:

Energy (e/s) = Mass (e/s) x (Distance (e/s) ^2)

Now, this formula looks familiar.  Have I just found a "sign post" that says "Einstein wuz here, 1905, E = MC^2"?

Yes, I did.  We can now state the following:

Energy (e/s) = Resistance (e/s) x (Time (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^ 2)) = Mass (e/s) x (Distance (e/s) ^2)

We can also flip the equation and introduce the concept of negative energy:

Energy (-e/s) = Resistance (-e/s) x (Time (-e/s) x (Current (-e/s) ^ 2)) = Mass (-e/s) x (Distance (-e/s) ^2)

You can read about it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy

You can also read about the concept of negative Mass here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass

Again, the values do not have be completely negative, just the overall sum total which means that these equations can and will get crazy complex.  There is nothing beautiful about this math except that it seems to work.

We have also introduced the concepts of negative distance, negative time and negative resistance.  We will deal with these later and talk about what they mean in practical terms.  Negative current should be obvious, its an electron or anti-proton with the inverse being the proton and positron.  As we can see our current electronics is based upon negative current.  As we also employ protons, it would indicate that our universe is a dolly mixture of matter and anti-matter, rather than the traditional viewpoint of it all being matter.  This implies that symmetry breaking, that is the production rates of matter to anti-matter, have defined biases depending on the type of matter.  See here for more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_breaking

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

In all of this, it is important that you keep referring to established science.  The drawback with this approach I am using is that it is taken from the frame of reference of uncertainty.  Thus, without being able to impose a defined unit on a particular aspect, it can become difficult to label what is being observed.  Sometimes it could be Charge, other times it could polarity or even an anti-particle.  As a result, I feel it may be best to introduce new unit at the end of this article to reflect this uncertain nature and unification.

Before we move on, we must now review the values and discuss any insights we have.  So, let's list the conversion values.

Positive Charge
Meter =  3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 e/s
Kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 e/s
Second =  1 e/s
Coulomb = 6,241,509,752,302,814,385.3767518217063 e/s
Joule =  3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 e/s
Ampere = 6.24150965×10^18 e/s
C (velocity of light) = 1 e/s

Negative Charge
meter = 3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 -e/s
kilogram = 3.501230577946767697834598968812e+54 -e/s
second =  1 -e/s
coulomb = 6,241,509,752,302,814,385.3767518217063 -e/s
joule =  3.8956443988091139382841461930519e+37 -e/s
ampere = 6.24150965×10^18 -e/s
C (velocity of light) = 1 -e/s

To derive the value of the meter, we must turn to speed of light
1 s / 299792458
which is:
1 e/s  / 299792458 = 3.3356409519815204957557671447492e-9 e/s

The first thing we note is that Mass is defined as the equivalent of Current in a given area.  This provides the following equation:

Mass (e/s) = (Current (e/s) ^2) / (Distance (e/s) ^2)

Now, this is very interesting.  We know that the proton has a larger Mass than the electron.  See here:

Electron Mass: 9.10938291×10⁻³¹ Kg
Proton Mass: 1.672621777×10⁻²⁷ Kg

According to this formula, it states for a the amount of current in a given area is equal to the Mass.  Well, let's rearrange the equation and calculate the amount of area that Mass with a particular Charge is equal to.  Given that we are using a proton/electron as a reference, if Mass equals the Meter in e/s, then it has the same amount of energy in Joules and the relationship is valid.

(Note:  This formula has been modified.  An explanation has been provided noting the changes.  The formula below is now correct. - 28/06/12.  Please refer to Additional Note 2)

Distance (e/s) ^ 2 = Mass (e/s) x (Current (e/s) ^2)

Electron

3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 e/s * 1 -e/s = 3,189,404,999,071,770,855,639,453.98532 -e/s

Proton

5,856,234,510,972,059,598,158,305,979.2967 * 1 e/s = 5,856,234,510,972,059,598,158,305,979.2967 e/s

Perfect, expressed in Joules this is:

Electron = 8.1871050654591619976025324000001e-14 J

Proton = 1.50327748414672853634174628e-10 J

This is the "Mass-Current-SpaceTime" equivalence and demonstrates this theory to be valid.  This formula denotes the Energy in the rest mass, plus the Energy due to the Current and its equivalence to an area of space-time.  Which is very similar to what E=MC^2 actually states.  Do not make the mistake of trying use the equation for multiple particle, like two electrons, it will not work.  Basically, the formula is restricted to a particular Charge for a given Mass, that is, a single particle.  If you need to calculate multiple particles, then you need to repeat the formula.

From this equation we may be able to explain about 0.5Kg of the missing Mass in galactic rotation through a process of Frame-dragging space.   I will work out how much time contributes to this process later in the series.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Next we can see that the Coulomb/Ampere/Current is the square root of the Joule. This means they are the same thing, I will be cautious though and not entirely eliminate the Coulomb, but in practice it should make no difference to use them interchangeably.

Now we can explain some additional observations.  There is no such thing as "rest Mass", or any type of static value whatsoever, everything is in flux thus Time is a component of every measurement.  As Time is a component of every measurement, we will need to integrate relativity into these equations to make them accurate.  We will get to this later in the series.  Further, we have taken a major step towards integrating Relativity and Quantum mechanics by quantizing space-time.

It is important to always keep in mind that it is the intention of this article to bridge classical engineering with quantum mechanics.  Whilst the above formulas are functional, it is not the entire truth.  To be honest, this formula alone will run into several pages of mathematics if we were to get completely accurate. It would also not just be a formula, it would be a form of logic with conditional changes that integrated into nearly every facet of reality.  Since each of these formulas would require the same treatment, we are talking tens of thousands of pages of code.

So, we can see that there is a lot of work to be done, but things are progressing quite nicely.

Let's now return to analysis of our converted values.  The material presented in these next paragraphs is HIGHLY theoretical.  They were just notes I made after I converted the values.  Deeper analysis and experimental studies will demonstrate if these notions are accurate.  I include this only to demonstrate my train of thinking and to keep notes.  This is something you do not often get to see when theories are developed.

There appears to a clear relationship between the Ohm, the second and the velocity of light.  What do these things have in common?  They all oppose something.  Resistance opposes current, Time opposes events and the velocity of light opposes velocities greater than this value.  We also see this value in Elementary Charge, leading us to suggest that Elementary Charge is an opposition to something.  In every other case, it is the opposition to some form of Energy exchange (which should be stating the obvious by now), implying that Charge itself is a phantom product of something else.  I would love to continue this part of the analysis as I am confident it is something critical, but we will deal with later and continue.  I'll provide a small hint for those interested, it seems to indicate that the Electron is not fundamental and that Energy is being expended in its creation.  This points to new physics.

Just to drive this point home, let's consider Time Dilation from a VERY theoretical viewpoint.  By accelerating an object, Time will slow as perceived by the external observer.  Thus, Time is resisting that Energy exchange and just like a standard resistor will emit heat, Time will produce extra time providing the appearance of Time slowing.  Obviously, this cannot be modeled like standard photon emission given that the observer in the inertial frame experiences no slowing of Time.  Thus, it provides a notion that the process is more akin to magnetic field lines that cancel in the inertial frame.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

The math would seem to introduce the notion of positive and negative space-time.  An imbalance in this would create an expanding/contracting space-time.  Such an imbalance would point to a loss of symmetry due to faster decay rate, or under-production, of a particular space-time particle.  Being able to generate one of the space-time particles would lead to the creation of additional local space-time or the cancellation of that local space-time.  As yet, I have not determine which type of particle dominates our current space-time but they are created and annihilated continuously. 

One excellent note in regards to this process is that the imbalance would create the effect of an expansion of space-time from every point in the universe.  This appears to match the requirement of Inflation and an expanding Universe. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29

What is controlling the rate of production is not clear at this moment.  The current accepted explanation is Dark Energy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Another observation is that during the inflation stage of the Universe, the rate of creation and annihilation would have flooded the early Universe with radiation.  Given the lack of symmetry, it would be a "fairly patchy" affair.  Whether this is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, or an element within it, remains to seen.

I said earlier that I would talk a little about Negative Resistance.  What do we mean by this?  The first thing I am sure engineers will think of is a Voltage gain across a resistor.  Well, we would be breaking the laws of Thermodynamics and I'm a good citizen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Let's perform a calculation with the concept of negative resistance.  Unlike traditional V=IR which will provide a positive value that we interpret as a voltage drop/reduction, this new formula provides a negative value which you just add to your circuit voltage.

Proton:  -4V = 2A x -2Ohms

Electron:  -4V = -2A x 2Ohms

Thus, +/- in terms of resistance is a vector opposing the flow of current and +/- in terms of the current is the polarity of the Charge.  You should be getting a good sense of how this type of mathematics is working and the ambiguity it can create.  It must at all times be tempered by established science to obtain the correct interpretation.

The concept of Negative Distance is really an anti-particle in space-time.  It does not denote some weird extra dimension or mirror universe.  The same principle applies to Negative Time, as we have described this similar to magnetics we could be looking at an opposite pole or something similar.  It does not imply time travel, unless you count a swift exit from the universe in a explosion.

As a final note, whilst playing about with this I considered it in the context of motion, vectors and degrees of freedom.  It started to introduce the notion of more than bipolar states and the potential for latent fields.  Certainly, we can see this in Quark color charges.  It also may, and I do say may, introduce the idea that physics is not the same everywhere in the Universe and that our local universe may be subject to change.  For more on this, read here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19429-laws-of-physics-may-change-across-the-universe.html

Well, that was a lot of material for one article.  I think everyone should be getting used to the idea that e/s is everything simultaneously and it is difficult to pin down exactly what it is at a given point of time.  For most of us, I am sure we would be comfortable thinking of this in terms of Joules or Energy, however, this unit really lacks tangibility and the concepts of uncertainty.  Thus, I am going to introduce a new unit that will have a one-to-one relationship with e/s.  This new unit characterizes the concept more clearly and reinforces the notion of unification.

I give you the Tao:

1 Tao = 1 e/s

"...Tao signifies the primordial essence or fundamental nature of the universe. In the foundational text of Taoism, the Tao Te Ching, Laozi explains that Tao is not a 'name' for a 'thing' but the underlying natural order of the universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe. Tao is thus "eternally nameless” (Dao De Jing-32. Laozi) and to be distinguished from the countless 'named' things which are considered to be its manifestations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao

This new branch of mathematics is Tao Mathematics, the language of uncertainty.

Talk about Enlightenment. :)