In very general terms, a 3D Relativistic Field, is a 3D coordinate system, it's inherent visual geometry, and the subsequent mathematical relationships derived from that visual geometry. It is a Relativistic Unified Field if all units are described by the same mathematical algorithm.

The tricky part is that if the visual geometry of a chosen coordinate system (or combination of coordinate systems) does not inherently support the reality one is attempting to mathematically model, the derived mathematical relationships will shape the vision, rather than the vision shape the mathematical relationships.

This is particularly relevant when the vision is conceptual... i.e. streaming uncharged quantum energy events... as opposed to a construct of charged mass. As our perceptual discrimination abilities advance, revealing mass-less constructs, it has become necessary to carefully re-evaluate the appropriateness of the base coordinate system of our empirical methods.

[2]TWO APPROACHES TO ACHEIVE A UNIFIED RELATIVISTIC FIELD:
A. Extract independent syntactic expressions of isolated events within the whole, and then attempt to quantitize a geometric object to unify the independent rpresentations.

B. Uniformly quantitize a geometric object based on the most apparent inherently unifying principle of the whole, and then develop logic expressions of individual events within the whole, utilizing the uniform quantization of the whole as the coordinate field logic.

It has been shown that the combined Cartesian-Radian coordinate system... (a 3D Relativistic Field, but not a 3D Unified Relativistic Field)... does not support a visualization of the collapse of gravity, the continuity of space/time, or volumetric energy events, which are concepts that at this time cannot be discounted by our actual knowledge.

As a group [3], the plethora of alternative quantization schemes being derived as mechanisms to model the evolution of quantum mathematical syntax, bears an undeniable resemblance to the visual geometry of a fractal collage... i.e. fractals can only be regionally of unified unit of quantization, can not define a relativistic whole, and do not inherently support the visualization of a Singularity.

This does not mean that observations of reality can not be relativistically modeled as a Unified Field Geometry, and some agreement has surfaced, as to the reason that no valid relativistic quantum model has been achieved... [4] i.e. an inability to verify the quantum mechanical behavior of gravity... but a distinction must be made between modeling observations of reality and modeling the discussion of perceptions of reality in an intentionally sententious language.

The Unified Qauntization of a Sphere (UQS) coordinate system [1] was derived by approach B to a Unified Relativistic Field. The basic inherent principle of quantitization for the UQS object, is the apparent Spherical Emission of a Singularity.

APPLICATION OF UQS TO CNGS EXPERIMENT: The following demonstration, of the potential for error in the validity of real quantum behavioral comparatives, utilizes the UQS coordinate system.

The approach herein is to digitally model, as 3D objects, visual observations of reality. The Unified Quantization of a Sphere (UQS) Coordinate System, was chosen for creation of the 3D digital models, because it inherently supports the visualization of a collapse of gravity, continuity of space-time, and volumetric energy events.

UQS Allows the Assumption: That either a 2 Dimensional UQS Planar Unit Closure, or, a 3 Dimensional UQS Volume Unit Closure is required for any Energy Event.

If: Travel speed of Event Energy is constant, along allowable path dictates within all UQS Volume Unit Closures (obviously, including the case for instantaneous)

And: Decision Time (DT) at any Energy Event Closure Node, varies with the unit quantization scale (resolution) of the UQS Field path dictates, which is unique to the type of energy event that closes at the specified 2D planar, or, 3D volume unit scale.

NOTE: In the UQS Field diagram below, for demonstrational purposes, the relative time for node events is established as: DTInformation < DTPhoton < DTNeutrino etc.... i.e. the Decision Time at closure node of an energy event less than Photon quantization, is less than Decision Time at closure node of a Photon energy event, etc.

ALSO NOTE: A Charged Mass quantum particle closure, involves an Inertial Singularity that bonds a system of energy events, and gives the mass particle it's other attributes including charge.

And: Unit travel distance, dictated by field geometry, varies with the specific Unit Size (US), which is unique to the type of energy event that closes at specified 2D planar, or, 3D volume unit scale.

Note: In the UQS Field diagram below, for demonstration purposes, the relative size of a 2D or 3D closure required for an energy event is established as: InformationUS < PhotonUS < NeutrinoUS, etc. ... i.e. the Unit Size of a Photon, and therefore the path dictate travel distance between closure events, is less than the Unit Size of a Neutrino and it's associated travel distance.

Again Note: The Unit Size of a Charged Mass (USCM) quantum particle is a construct of the paths of a unique number and type of energy event closures about an inertial origin,.. i.e. it's structure is bonded by the inertia of the Singularity Geometry in the Relativistic Field, in this case the UQS Singularity.

Note: In the instantaneous case, the Unit Size variable would drop out of the equations, which would require a somewhat different approach than herein demonstrated.

Then Where: NUS = Neutrino Unit Size, PUS = Photon Unit Size, #ND = the number of Neutrino Decisions (red squares in illustration) over distance (d) being measured, #PD = number of Photon Decisions over distance (d) being measured, and c = the speed constant d/t.

If: The value of DTN is such that: [(NUS * c * #ND) + (DTN * #ND)] = time... is less than... [(PUS * c * #PD) + (DTP * #PD)] = time

Then: As in the case illustrated in the example below, the apparent speed of a Neutrino, over distance (d), would be greater than the apparent speed of a Photon, over distance (d)... i.e. the Neutrino would arrive .26 units of time before the Photon, even though the actual speed of a Photon Unit Event, due to a smaller Decision Time (DTP) and Unit Size (US), is faster than the actual speed of a Neutrino Unit Event.

ILLUSTRATION #1:

EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATED: NUS = 5 units, PUS = 4 units

Choose: DTP = .25, and DTN = any value < .3125... let's say .28

NOTE: Scale of numbers chosen to facilitate illustration on page... i.e. not representative of empirical data.

Also Note: the speed constant (c) drops out of the comparative, since it is the same in both.

Then: [(5 relative grid units * 8 Neutrino Unit Closures) + (.28 * 8 Neutrino Unit Closures) = 42.24 time units

Note: That the ratio of Neutrino travel time over Photon travel 42.24/42.5 = .9938823 remains constant with increase in straight-line distance (d).

TEST PROPOSAL: Although the Neutrino does not interact with other particles, a small mass has been verified, and thus it might be possible to utilize the Neutrino to determine the necessity of the Decision Time (DT) variable in streaming energy event Velocity Measurements:

If: The Neutrino stream could be by some means deflected as shown below...

ILLUSTRATION #2:

Then: The increased Number of Neutrino Decisions (#ND) in the deflected alternate route could be isolated from the travel distance/time, in the following manner:

The straight line A to C velocity measurement:
V=2b/t + (#ND * NDT) ... where #ND = 28 in above illustration.

The deflected alternate route A to B to C velocity measurement:
V= [2*(b/cosA)]/t + (#ND * NDT) ... where #ND = 36 in above illustration.

Note: (NDT) is a constant and drops out of the above comparison.

RELATIVISTIC TEST ANALYSIS: If the OPERA Neutrino stream experiment was expanded as proposed above, and the straight-line A to C velocity measurement is less than the deflected alternate route A to B to C velocity measurement, it would reveal potential for error induced in quantum behavioral comparatives made without a relativistic visualization of energy event geometric properties. One might even suspect that Einstein was right, at least in regard to his insistence that observations of reality suggest the existence of a 3D spatial geometry framework of unified quantization, which if known, would inherently regulate the mathematical assignment of observed relative position, size, and speed of energy events.

WAS EINSTEIN RIGHT?: [4] "...whether a field theory of the kind here contemplated can lead to the goal at all. By this is meant a theory which describes exhaustively physical reality, including 4-D space, by a field. The present-day generation of physicists is inclined to answer in the negative. In conformity with the present form of quantum theory, it believes that the state of a system cannot be specified directly, but only in an indirect way by a statement of statistics of measurement attainable on the system. The conviction prevails that the experimentally assured duality of nature (corpuscular and wave structure) can be realized only by such a weakening of the concept of reality. I think that such a far-reaching theoretical renunciation is not for the present justified by our actual knowledge, and that one should not desist from pursuing to the end the path of relativistic field theory."

DESIGN CRITERIA FOR A VALID RELATIVISTIC FIELD COORDINATE GEOMETRY: The OPERA experiment may be pivotal in this discussion, but there is already a great volume of observational lab data that can not be utilized to derive mathematical relationships because of a lack of relativistic assignment. Enough to suggest that the relativistic aspect of assembling the details of quantum observations, would undoubtedly benefit from a valid relativistic quantum field coordinate framework. To that end, a shift in focus, away from attempts to model consistency into the evolving discussion of quantum syntactical representations (Method A), to a visually verifiable model of the most apparent inherent principles of reality as a whole (Method B), should perhaps be prioritized on the quantum particle behavioral science agenda.

Fortunately, the inability of theorist to verify the quantum mechanical behavior of gravity, suggest some apparent inherent principles of reality as a whole... i.e. to investigate many of the unresolved questions that have been generated by recent empirical investigation of gravity... require investigation with a relativistic framework that facilitates:

It may require many more technically perfect empirical measurements before one would have filled in enough blanks in the model to justify acknowledgement of any proposed manifold, as a valid relativistic quantum field coordinate geometry, but if the OPERA experiment is extended as suggested above, and predicted results obtained, it would seem potential for distortion of the vision has reached critical mass.

References:
1. Unified Quantization of a Sphere (UQS)... UQSMatrixMechanix.com
2. arXiv:quant-ph/0210098v3 ; H. D. Zeh (Univ. of Heidelberg)
3. arXiv:1101.0367 ; Robert Oeckl (UNAM)
4. arXiv:gr-qc/0004005v1 ; David Wallace (Oxford UK)
5. A. Einstein; 'Relativity Special & General Theory'... 17th. ed. Crown Publishing Inc. 1961 pg. 157

Sue Lingo
UQS Author/Logician
© UQSMATRIXMECHANIX.COM
-----------------------------