choose color:
font size: smaller normal bigger
site settings

TCS Theory FAQ

1. Question: Page 6. How is your absolute time concept related to the requirements of relativity?

The “absolute time” or simply the variable “t” in the TCS theory [1], is exactly equal to the absolute magnitude of the expansion of temporary subspace occurred between two specific moments. The variable “absolute time” is a scalar and is given by the following expression into the TCS theory:

where Vt1 is for any volume within the temporary subspace in the initial moment, Vt2 is the size reached due to the expansion of temporary subspace time measured at the final instant and k’ is a dimensional constant which depends on the time unit and the measuring method taken.In the theory of relativity, the absolute time is related to a shift in the temporal dimension, this is why the absolute time at TCS theory is conceptually different deep inside with the absolute time of the theory of relativity.But, unless the conceptual difference deep inside in the calculation equations, which contain the time variable “t”, developed within the classical physics and relativity theory it is right within the TCS theory, if in the process the “absolute time” do not use mathematical expressions derived from the Lorentz transformation [3] and do not use expressions that include the absolute time associated with the temporary displacement.

2. Question: Pages 7 and 8. Whereas the electron appears to be the smallest free electric charge, the quarks with fractional charges are bound within the atomic nucleus. Can you approach explain this difference? Your picture of an electron being composed of quarks is different from the conventional one.

The electron is composed with more than one type of quark, and with the current experimental technology it is only the detectable atomic quark with negative charge. Within the QEDw theory [4] the concept of quarks is limited in term of charges; the quark are elementary units and therefore does not exist in the nature fractional charges, because the QEDw theory it’s far from current conventional concepts. In the introduction to the TCS theory [5] I made only minimal advances to allow an overview of the topic.
In QEDw theory all quarks interact among themselves only within their own domain, positive or negative the atomic quarks interact only with atomic quarks into the atomic subspace, negative or positive planetary quarks interact only with planetary quarks into the planetary subspace and negative or positive galactic quarks only interact with galactic quarks into the galactic subspace. They are also different magnitudes of absolute inertial masses and the charges within each domain, and also are different the magnitudes of the remaining physical constants within each domain.
In laboratory experiments with high energy particles, depending on the magnitude of the used energy, can occur events related to atomic particles and quarks that does not exist in the natural substances, within these experimental phenomena is the fragmentation of the masses and the fragmentation of the charges, see footnote.
I think that instead of expensive experiments with very high energies, we need experiments more original and subtle as the experiments performed by Dr. A. Aspect with electromagnetic waves, which will lead to better understanding the different types of waves that exist in nature. And then, the development of detectors for different types of waves, we must introduce in the experimental the study of quarks. The detectors currently using H2O or other substances are unable to distinguish the interactions between quarks within three different domains.
Note: If I have to study a mosquito, I took a magnifying glass and then I begin the analysis: these are the legs (to walk), these are the wings (to fly) ... etc, but I study it, without colliding it against a wall at high speed.

5. Question: Page 8. Are your planetary and galactic quarks similar to gravitons?

The planetary quarks into the planetary subspace domain are a part of the atomic particles; the planetary quarks are equivalent to the gravitons of contemporary theories. The planetary quarks determine the stability of planetary systems. While in the galactic stability are involved the galactic quarks that are within the domain of the galactic subspace and also these quarks are into the atomic particles, and therefore belong to a different domain that the planetary quarks or the gravitons, the study falls completely within the QPD theory [6] and QEDw theory [4].

6. Question: Page 8. Does your galactic subspace include dark energy and dark matter?

Within the TCS theory there is not dark matter or dark energy, because the elementary energy is manifested in four different magnitudes, is a fundamental attribute and it is owned by each of the four subspaces. In the TCS theory the energy is part of the essence of the four subspaces, and thus any entity natural or artificial that exists, occupies a portion of the field within each subspace that corresponds to a certain degree of quantized subespacial energy.
In TCS theory all natural or artificial entity that exists, even us, is just a cluster of complex wave phenomena organized, into a domain of one or more of the subspaces, and all are affected by the devenir determined by the subespacial temporary expansion .

7. Question: Page 8. Is your negatron related to the neutron, and where in your scheme appears the neutrino?

The negatron is a part of the neutron and in any complex nucleus (two protons or more), with the exception of hydrogen 1, is part of the inner layer of the nucleus (the protons are in the outer layer of the nucleus). The neutron is not a particle, it is an atom composed of one proton and one negatron that have been launched at high speed outside the nucleus, that remain in solidarity, due to the electrostatic interaction, and resulting in the disintegration of an atomic nucleus. The Neutron is a true atom, at rest can be detected by optical spectroscopy, within crystalline networks; this elemental substance I named it with the name of Cristyn [7]. The cristyn or neutron is composed of one proton and one negatron, the proton and negatron is mixed on the same plane, there are both particles in the form of a helix in the direction of advance of them, the proton turn in the cardinal radius orbit, while negatron tour in an orbit of greater radius. To the extent that increases the speed of the whole, reduce of the two radius helix and thus decreases the distance between the proton and negatron. To the extent that increases the speed, decrease of the helix radius, then we have: slow neutrons (of heavy frontal area, that are causing the disintegration of nuclei in nuclear fission), and fast neutrons and with very small helix front radius, that crossing the nucleus without interacting with them and are retained or disintegrated in the armor of the reactors. The neutrinos are the planetary quarks and the galactic quarks, to come off in the disintegration of an atomic nucleus or in the beta decay of neutrons or Cristyn. For the beta decay of neutron, the relations accurate mass and charge of the quarks (atomic, planetary and galactic) are:

where “N” is a neutron, “p” is a proton, “n” is a negatron, “x” is the assumed neutrino or a number of planetary quarks and galactic quarks, qA- is a atomic negative quark of mass equal to the electron mass, qA+ is a atomic positive quark of mass equal to the electron mass, qP± are planetary quarks of charge positive and negative and qG± are galactic quarks of charge positive and negative, see footnote. The atomic quarks are detected with current laboratory techniques and are well known, while the remaining quarks are shown by their effect when they collide in a very sporadic due to its enormous speed.
The composition of galactic and planetary quarks and their masses are very different from the composition of atomic quarks, the mass release during beta decay of the non-atomic quarks, is that contemporary physics has been attributed to the alleged particle predicted in 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli and called neutrino. The planetary quarks and the galactic quarks, travel at enormous speeds greater than that the light, in some cases their effect is shown in laboratory experiments and has been attributed to the neutrino. Planetary quarks and galactic quarks released by the beta decay can not interact with atomic quarks, but quarks can crash with quarks of your own domain, this is what happens when a quarks crash at great speed a quark of the electron and it is disintegrated releasing blue glow, like that seen in the Cherenkov radiation in the atmosphere and the interior of nuclear fission reactors.
Note: Not specified quantities of planetary and galactic quarks, because even, I have not completed the analysis of the QEDw theory.

8. Question: Your gravitational waves propagate at a speed being different from that of light. Is this not in conflict with relativity?

The fact that the planetary waves, galactic and temporary travels at enormous speeds greater than the light it is not in conflict with the theory of relativity; in the theory of relativity are still unaware today the existence of subspaces and inside it says nothing of another kinds of electromagnetic waves, except in the few references made to gravitational waves. A. Einstein worked on general relativity even when D. Hilbert had not completed his work on the mathematical foundations of subspaces, but there was significant links between the two scientists that make me suspect that this item A. Einstein knew it, but most likely in a life is not enough to reach the final conclusions.

9. Question: Page 10. Your energy loss of an EM-wave due to hysteresis; does it have some relation to the concept of “tired light” discussed by Jean-Pierre Vigier among others?

Indeed, loss of energy in the wave TCS theory is related to the work of “Tired light” of the Jean-Pierre Vigier, but closer to the work of the FLRW by “Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker” and also the concept of A. Einstein in the theory of general relativity on the subject, it is the reason why the impedance of free space (Z0) is not equal to zero.

10. Question: Page 13. Where is the experimental proof for the maximum energy of an EM-wave?

I do not know whether experiments were performed in order to achieve maximum energy of an electromagnetic wave. The calculation [9] in equation (14) is theoretical and comes from the theoretical relationship between the expansion of temporary subspace and physical space from of the equation (13).

11. Question: Page 17. Where is the observational proof for the limited energy radiated by the sun?

We have still not made experiments of energy radiated by the Sun in its vicinity. The calculations [10] in the image No. 3 on page 17, were made on the assumption that the energy in the process of nuclear fusion in the Sun generates electromagnetic waves at the maximum energy and then, due to the distance traveled, their energy decays determined by the electromagnetic hysteresis.

12. Question: Page 19. The value given by you for the radius of our Cosmos is about fifteen orders of magnitude larger than the observable parts of the universe.

In the TCS theory the radius of our Cosmos [11] is huge, much larger than the size assumed by current theory, it is also much larger than the area observed by astronomical means. Our Cosmos is just a small part of the Universe occupied in full by the temporary subspace or more simply, is all that exists. Our Cosmos necessarily correspond to the maximum range of an electromagnetic wave [12], because at that distance or radius of the Cosmos, is the periphery where the wind produced by the expansion subespacial reaches the speed of light, is the limit of all Cosmos or also it is the place where the unstable outer layer of Cosmos. All Cosmos are the same size and only differ in the age and interior structure.

13. Question: Page 20. The formula for the Planck spherical constant has the dimension (kg.m2/s) and not m3.

Indeed the expression is not right in the second paragraph; the dimensional constant was omitted due to a mistake. The right expression is:

14. Question: Page 19. Is it possible to make a relationship among String and Black Holes theories with the TCS theory?

Yes, on page 19 paragraph 13.2. “Implications on our Cosmos”, I talk in detail about a cosmological event of quarks, elementary particles and substances generation within the peripheral layer of Cosmos, due to the existence of a cubic expansion that was established after the initial central singularity of each Cosmos.
This cyclic cosmological event results in a macro nova (big implosion) and creates a black hole, repeated n times into the Universe. This theory shares a several points within the String theory and Black Holes theory developed by Sir Stephen W. Hawking.
To unify these two theories with The Three-dimensional Complex Space theory (TCS theory) is necessary to make minor changes on them to match the conceptual aspects about the origin (due to a initial singularity), the mechanism of cosmological evolution (a cubic centrifugal expansion of the subspace and material regeneration of the physical space on the most outer layer of Cosmos in centripetal form) and temporal and dimensional aspects (a physical space of nine dimensions and twelve dimensions in total, comprising the three-dimensional subspace plus the absolute time determined by the magnitude of expansion).

References and citations

1 Introduction to The Three-dimensional Complex Space theory – TCS, 25/05/2009, paragraph 2 on page 6. or
2 Idem [1], but see section 11.2, expression 13 on page 12.
3 Speed of atomic particles and physical constants, 31/02/2008, see first paragraph in section Consequences on page 14. 
4 QEDw theory – Quantum Electro-Dynamics wave theory that would be published in the future.
5 Idem [1], but see first paragraph of the section Prologue on page 3.
6 QPD theory – Quantum Planetary-Dynamics theory that would be published in the future.
7 QEDa Theory: The atom and their nucleus (written in Spanish language), 14/10/2005, see in chapter VII – The Neutron and the Cristyn on page 123-144.
8 Idem [1], but see section 11.1, expression 6 on page 11.
9 Idem [1], but see section 11.2, expression 14 on page 13.
10 Idem [1], but see section 11.7, on page 17.
11 Idem [1], but see first paragraph of the section 13.2 on page 19.
12 Idem [1], but see first paragraph of the section 11.6 on page 16.