Thursday, June 28, 2012

Dark Matter Update

Dark Matter Update .
Andre Willers
28 Jun 2012
Synopsis :
Dark matter and energy are fictitious , but crumpled branes seem to be real . This adds significantly to complexity . This reallity might not be a simulated locale .
Discussion :
Briefly , slingshot-effects are sufficient to explain supposed gravitational anomalies . They simply exchange energy between rotating masses and linear kinetic energy . The momentum transfer is called the slingshot effect . It also means that a significant percentage of the energy in the system is “in transit” , as it were . We are talking interstellar distances . It is a dynamical system . The observed effect is either an overmass or an undermass , depending on the dynamics of the in-transit momentum transferring masses .
The Crumpling of space-time from brane collisions actually increases the complexity of possible paths . Luckily , we can compute this from general theory (See Appendix I) . This is because of one of the few Hyperdimensional Theorems we know to be true : We can always find a set of dimensions , so that the distance R from the center of random Beth(0) movements is R=d*Square root of(n)  , where d is a step and n is the number of steps .
This seems contradictory . But remember , these are deterministic systems . They only become random because of random constraints . Thus , constraints increase randomness by the same order that the constraints are random  .  If the space-time crumpling is beyond our understanding , it is ,by definition , random  . Then we can use the Crumpled Paper Algorithm .  See Appendix I .
See Appendix III for some Randomness  .
Are we in a simulation ?
In Appendix I we derive mu=2.1773242 * 10^ (-4) , meaning ratio of volume-of-mass to volume in a Planck Universe that is crumpled .

This is another way of saying that the possible number of crumplings (N) is
N=2^ (1/mu)       (from Binomial distribution .)
The degrees of randomness  in the crumpling .
Also a measure of the degree of complexity .
N = 2^4592.7933 . A large number .

In Appendix II we derive a measure of complexity  from observed Planck quantities  and found it wanting in the complexity stakes .

1/dx * 1/dmv <= 2pi/h     ….from Heisenberg uncertainty principle
                      <= 9.482514 * 10^33

But , the complexity of the crumpling completely overshadows the planck complexity .
Thus  , if we are in a simulation , N will have to be drastically lower . In other words few and major folds in the space-time crumpling . These should be detectable . One thinks of black-holes . In an artificial locale , the number of black-holes per cubic parsec should give an indication . A nice little problem for the Dear Reader .
More likely , the number of singularities simply balance the values of the Planck values . Not cause , but in a dynamic balance .
What use is this argument , one might ask .
Well , you can make a super-battery . Spin a particle in a capacitor field . Very high energy densities can be achieved . Store energy in spin .
The Karma of Constraints .
Appendix I
Crumpling Paper and Space-Time
Andre Willers
23 Feb 2012

“The moving finger writes , and having writ , crumples it in random ruins.”
With apologies to Omar Khayyam .

Crumpled paper gives a good approximation of spacetime as a membrane with clumpy masses .
“Empty” spaces not occupied by the membrane gives an impression of dark matter .
We derive an expression to give this ratio using Infinite Descent and Beth(0) Random Walk .

Discussion :
1.The Crumpled paper :
Consider a paper disk of radius r and thickness d .
It's volume is then Vp=pi * r^2 * d
Draw a line from the center to the edge , in steps of length d , over the edge , then back to the center Let nu=r/d , a measure of the thickness of the paper . Note that it is a pure number .

The number of steps in the line is then n0=(2r/d)+1
But the number of steps to the edge of the original paper disk is n1=r/d=(n0-1)/2

Vp=(pi*d^3*(n0-1)^2 )/4

Crumple it up in a way that is as random as flipping a coin (ie Beth(0) )

The Trick : The line we have drawn up above breaks up into random vectors by rotating through a third dimension = crumpling into a ball .

We thus have a continuous line of random steps of known number of steps .
In 3 dimensions , the mean square distance from the center then is known
R = d * (n0)^0.5   …. See true for all dimensions as long as all are of Beth(0) order of randomness.

Volume of crumpled ball Vb=4/3*pi*R^3
The Ratio Vb/Vp = mu then gives the ratio of crumpled ball space to volume of paper mass .

Mu={4/3*pi*d^3 *n0^(3/2)} / (pi*d^3*(n0-1)^2 )/4
Notice the d^3 term and pi cancels out . This has profound physical implications .
This simplifies to

Expressed as thickness of paper , nu , which is a pure number independent of metric chosen .
mu=4*4/3(2*nu+1)^3/2 / (2*nu)^2
mu=4/3*(2nu+1)^3/2  / nu^2
This gives a quartic equation in nu , which can be solved exactly algebraically .
(mu)^2*(nu)*4 – 2^7/3^2 *(nu)^3 – 2^6/3^2 (nu)^2 – 2^5/3^2 * (nu)^1 - 2^4/3^2  =0

Test it on A4 paper:
A4 paper has thickness d~0,1 mm and r~150 mm
mu= 1- 0.90257841
This means that the crumpled A4 paper ball encloses about 90% empty space .
This agrees with experimental results . See NewScientist.

Note that the force applied does not matter . As long as the paper is untorn , mu will be the same .

How many times can it be folded ?
Solving the above (see below) gives mu=1 for about nu=14.7 to 14.8 .
This means there are no empty spaces left to fold into .

This can get complicated , so I will keep it simple .
Take a piece of paper and fold it . You then have a new piece of paper .The test-circle of same r will have double the thickness .
Ie , nu will double .
Between 7 and 8 folds , nu will hit the ceiling of mu=1 , regardless of the starting value of nu .
This is the maximum number of paper folds , as confirmed from other sources .

Physical interpretations :
Take an m-dimensional space . Randomness of order Beth(0) applies equally to all . The underlying equalizer . Collapse it to three dimensions and let the third one approach single Planck lengths .
Then we can use the above paper approximation . Notice how d cancels out except for an addition of 1 in final ratio .

What does it mean ?
See the physical universe as a brane (ie sheet of paper) in a multiverse . Crumpling it means it has mass and singularities . Both are aspects of the same thing .
An estimate of the number of singularities can be made from edges and points in crumpled paper .

Can we crumple the paper to a ball that is just paper ?
That is a particle .
The answer is “Yes” .

Such crumpling means that mu=1 (no empty space in any dimension )
This gives an quartic equation in nu that solves to four values , other dimensions than three denoted by i=(-1)^0.5

See for a calculator
nu1=  14.722181   (this makes the physical particle universe possible . Mass .
Nu2= - 0.004167 + i*0.49558  (Rotation :Spin :charge and magnetism)
nu3 =   - 0.004167 - i*0.49558  (Rotation :Spin :charge and magnetism) notice the minus sign .
Nu4= - 0.49164542 (quantum effects as the particles dither. Inertia?)

What does a negative nu mean ?
nu=r/d . A negative nu means one of r or d must be negative .
1.If r is negative , it can be interpreted as curled up dimensions , inside the “outside” dimensions as defined by i . See “ The inside of zero” Aug 2009
2.If d is negative , it can be interpreted as quantum effects . A particle does not “occupy” all the space . Likes hopscotch .
3.But notice the the two are interrelated .The notorious observer effect . Where we place the minus sign between r or d .

There should be relationships between nu2 , nu3 and nu4 . Various rotations between macro- and micro dimensions .
This means the contraption is not symmetrical  But we already know that ,

Physical constants :
Things like charge , mass , etc should be derivable from these basics . Hint:use lots of crumpled paper .

There is hope . The fact that it is quartic equation , which is always solvable , means that the Universe can be understood . Complicated and perverse , but as long as you stick to Beth(0) randomness , it can be understood . For higher orders of randomness , good luck .

Dark Matter :
I nearly forgot . Using Planck units , we can define the ratio of thickness of the brane as
nu=c*PlanckTime/(1*Planck Time)
nu=c = 3*10^8
This gives a
Mu=4/3*(2c+1)^3/2  / c^2
Simplifying (c is very large) . This gives the approximation
mu=4/3* 2^1.5 / c^0.5
mu=2.1773242 * 10^ (-4)
mu = 1-0.999783357
This means that 99.9783357 % of the universe can be interpreted as being “Dark Matter”.
Ie with attractive and repulsive qualities . Basically empty space .
May you have joy of that .

An interesting aside :Creative artists .
How many pieces of paper does an artist need to crumple up and throw away before he finds something acceptable ?
Something acceptable would translate to mu=1 . Thus , we can say 7-8 truly random  foldings should give a result .
The same holds for cryptanalysis or any attempt to find an unknown .
Algorithm :
Try 8 times , crumple , then put it aside and try again later .
There is a quantum connection , strange as it might seem .

And what about a nice little Crumpling App for smartphones ?
But the randomness should be from truly random tables , not pseudo-random generators .

Randomly yours.
Appendix II
Slingshots , Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
Andre Willers
17 Apr 2011

Synopsis :
Dark matter and Dark energy are misinterpretations of slingshot effects where the probe-mass is not infinitesimal .
In other words , they are observational artifacts .

Discussion .
See "The Problem with Fields" Dec 2008
Reproduced in Appendix A for ease of reference .

Field Theory assumes that Probe Masses can be infinitesimal . Yet , if we combine finite probe masses with SlingShot theory , a better fit to explain astrophysical anomalies is obtained  . Also meson interactions .

Why Slingshot ?
1. Because we do not have a theory of three interacting masses . But we can do it for two masses . But everything rotates and orbits . So , we can describe all moving delineated masses as interactions of two masses slingshotting .
2. It is a valid mechanism for converting angular momentum into linear momentum .
See Penrose Process (  )
And vice-versa .

The alert reader will notice reactionless drives and high-energy storage devices lurking in these seeming innocuous statements .

An Example :
A simple slingshot , though the principles hold for more complex cases .

V2={(1-m/M)v1+2U1} / {1+m/M}

We choose not to let m be small relative to M .
But we are also too lazy , ignorant and old to count every particle in a universe .

So we cheat and say : let x = m/M , then integrate v2 for 0 <= x  =<1 .="" nbsp="" o:p="">
This means that the probe mass m takes on finite values from zero to our major mass M . This then includes subatomic and atomic and any other particles .

This gives values
Integral (v2) dx (from x= 0 to 1)  = 2*ln(2)*(v1+u1)   ………(1)
Integral {(v2)^2} dx (from x= 0 to 1)  = 2*(v1+u1)^2 – 4*ln(2)*v1*u1  + 1   ……(2)

Equation (1) tells you how to make an inertialess drive .
The Spindizzy strikes again !

Equation (2) is an Energy equation and is responsible for all those horrible contortions of Mond (especially the last term of +1) .

It also tells you how to make stable , high , density energy storage devices .

Remember , magnetism is spin . If there is spin , there are Slingshots .

Galaxies seeming to orbit too close and fast/slow are simply exchanging slingshot masses (cf mesons)

Bits and pieces of the universe keep on flying around , creating space-time as they go.
It depends on their entanglements . The present universe looks more like an amoeba , with tentacles shooting out . The extent of space and time depends on where you look.

Vacuoles ?
Mini-universes created by tendrils of slingshot masses enclosing . Interesting spin effects as different tendrils have different velocities .
These should be able to be created in the laboratory .

Complexity :
Invert the Heisenberg Principle to define the Complexity of a Beth(0) Universe .
dx*dmv >= h/2pi     ….Heisenberg uncertainty principle

Let 1/dx be all the possible values of x (ie the complexity of space)
Let 1/dmv be all the possible values of momentum . (ie complexity of time)

1/dx * 1/dmv <= 2pi/h     ….from Heisenberg uncertainty principle
                      <= 9.482514 * 10^33
This is the measure of Complexity of the Beth(0) Universe we find ourselves in .

This almost certainly means that we are in a simulation .
The Complexity of Beth(0) is too small .

But is it sufficient for open-ended complexity of Beth(>0) ?

I can intuit that there is a threshold .

Bah .

I can also intuit that we are probably on a chaotic boundary threshold .
Go one way , and you recycle (Karma concept)
Go another way , advance .

And it was designed this way .

Storming Heaven .
Shooting tendrils of space-time into the multiverse will decrease the Heisenberg constant , thereby increasing the complexity past the threshold of recycling .
The Poor Civilization's Singularity .

The mass of the soul .
This can now be calculated from first principles from the complexity of momentum .
It is about 4! gm = 24 gm  relative to the surrounding universe simulation .
And may you have joy of that .

May God have Mercy .



Appendix A
The Problem with Fields .
Andre Willers
21 Dec 2008

A sad tale of Hidden Assumptions and Fictitious Forces .

Our story begins with Isaac Newton about 400 years ago . He proved that radially symmetric bodies (like balls) can be treated as a point-mass from a gravitational viewpoint as long as f=G*m(1)*m(2)/ (R^2)  holds . This is his famous Law of Gravitation .

Fast forward to the Twentieth Century . Space probes were measured to have accelerations not predicted by expected theory . (See New Scientist 20 Sept 2008 p38 "Fly-by  Fright." )

Fright indeed . Physical laws were under threat .
It was first noticed with the Pioneer probes and stimulated the MOND (Google it) modification to Newton's Law .
But the effect was small and controversial .

But then even a bigger shock came . Probes doing slingshots around the Earth (like Gallileo in 1992 , Near Shoemaker in 1998 ) showed such large divergences from expected velocities after the slingshot that the matter could not be swept under the carpet anymore . (The favourite human response.)

Is our understanding of physics wrong ?

No .

What is going on ?

They treated planets as point sources in their programs .
(Remember , these are the guys that mixed up newtons and poundals on the Mars probe) .

The Earth-Moon illustration .
The system orbits around a common center of gravity which lies inside the Earth  .
Even school atlases' state this .

You can treat the Earth as a gravity point-source , but then you must include the Moon as well (and other bodies , but their effect is very small) .

The velocity change during the slingshot maneuver is dependant on the Earth's rotation around the common center of gravity . The Earth-Moon rotational plane coincides roughly with the Earths equator . Hence the observational datum that the velocity change is proportional the difference in the angles incoming and outgoing with reference to the equatorial plane .

What is happening ?
Are conservation laws being violated ?
No .

Internal Slingshot .

It is simply a slingshot maneuver around a virtual mass .

The Earth-Moon rotating system is not radially symmetric . It is lumpy  . The velocity change is dependant on a large number of factors , but can be calculated .

The energy comes from the weak coupling between angular momentum and linear momentum .
From a really basic viewpoint , this can be easiest seen as the difference between a straight line touching a circle and the continuation of the circle . (Newton's laws measure forces by disturbances from a straight line .)

Another way of looking at it :
The gravitational attractions on an outside probe of masses rotating around each other and about a common center of gravity do not cancel out . A small vector-residue is left .
This is a dynamical effect . Movements only need apply .

This can be calculated ,
But will vary in every instance .
(A software-computer (General Theory) is not possible .) This is because there are three bodies involved :
Earth , Moon and Probe .

The Three-body Problem has no general solution . This is well known in mathematics  Now are you happy ?

Calculating this gravitational difference gives rise to a disturbing effect : the mathematical terms for the field probe does not vanish .
In hindsight , a necessary effect because of the general insolubility of the Three-Body problem . But not obvious beforehand .

This is simply restating there is no general solution of the  Three-body Problem .
Two bodies plus a probe makes a three-body problem . Every case will be different . Use Chaos theory .

This will be true for any body in the solar System (ie Pioneer probes) , as well as any rotating set of bodies in this Universe .

The Field Assumption .
Beloved of theoretical physicists , mainly because they are too lazy to do it properly .

The Classical definition is a probe mass , charge or whatever examined near the identifiable object . The forces the probe experience are defined as the Field . The Probe is then ignored .

This has the hidden assumption that the effect of the probe can be cancelled out .
(Ie that it is really a Two-body Problem).

In most radially symmetric objects like balls or charges this can be done .
But , alas , it breaks down if the objects are lumpy . Then the pesky mathematical terms denoting the probe just won't go away .

Without the hidden assumptions about symmetry , error margins have to be specified .
We cannot use our software computer (ie theory) to cancel out the interference of our test-probe .

This is analogous to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle , but not similar .

You have to understand levels of Randomness
(See "NewTools " )
Error-margins at Beth(x+1) level  for Beth(x) levels can be made arbitrarily small (although maybe not zero) .

General Relativity  and Tensors .
This effect can be clearly seen if you use Ricci's Tensors to denote gravitational fields. This is the really general granddaddy of fields .
Tensor theory very clearly requires that tensors are only defined in continuous and differentiable spaces . (Rather amusing , since this takes place before any metric is assigned . Sub-Space !)  Hence the problems with quantum gravity . A quantal system is by definition  discontinuous . Trying to describe it by continuous methods is futile .

Or Bio-fields . Things are just too idiosyncratic for meaningful abstractions using fields .

Fictitious Forces .
The major culprit is centripetal force (also known as centrifugal force ) . This is a fictitional force to balance the theory's bookkeeping .

From the above you can see that a large composite body like a galaxy composed of many objects rotating around each other and all around a center will have a nett attraction either larger or smaller than by gravity alone .

If larger , objects that we observe to fall around it in orbit will have a higher speed than required by the fictitious centripetal force of purely gravitational attraction .
Dark matter , anyone ?

If smaller , things fly apart .
Negative Dark matter , anyone ?

If you look at the maths , being exactly the same will smack of design (The probability of this is very small for Beth(0) randomness ) .
Stellar engineering on Beth(2) or Beth(3) scale .

Does this sound familiar ?

Dark Matter .
Phlogiston , ahoy! Your buddy Dark Matter is coming .
You can then dance the Ptolemaic Gavotte .

Can Fields be salvaged ?
Maybe .
But then horrible contortions are necessary .
Dimensions writhe in semi-being . As a last resort , a marriage counselor might have to be called in .

But why bother ? There are better ways .

If you have to , assign error margins to every field-point and interact the error-margins . This will automatically result in spiky discontinuities . Gauss would have loved them , but unless you are as expert as he was, try the simpler route .

Once again , why bother ? Use Beth(x) systems .

And if you are feeling adventurous , try numbers that only exist at different Beth(x>1) levels .

Guaranteed to lose weight .

Andre .


Appendix III

Orders of Randomness 2
Andre Willers
15 Aug 2008

See : “Orders of Randomness”

I have been requested to expand a little on orders of Randomness and what it means .
Please note that human endeavours at this date use only randomness of the order of flipping a coin ( Beth(0) )

Aleph is the first letter of the Hebrew Alphabet . It was used by Cantor to denote
Classes of Infinity (ie Aleph(0) for Rational numbers , Aleph(1) for Irrational Numbers , etc

Beth is the second letter of the Hebrew Alfabet . It means “House”

I will first repeat the derivation of Orders of Randomness from : “Orders of Randomness” because it is so important .

Start Quote:
First , simple Randomness .
Flip of a coin .
Heads or Tails . 0 or 1
Flip an unbiased coin an infinite number of times ,write it down below each other and do it again .
All possible 0 and 1’s

An example : Beth(0)
Flips(1) 0,1,1,1,1,… etc
Flips(2) 0,1,1,1,0,… etc
Flips(infinity) 0,0,0,0,0,0,…etc

This describes all possible states in a delineated binary universe .
“delineated binary” means a two sided coin which cannot land on it’s side .

Now draw a diagonal line from the top left of Flips(1) to Flips(infinity) .
At every intersection of this diagonal line with a horizontal line , change the value .
The Diagonal Line of (0,1)’s is then not in the collection of all possible random
Horizontal coin-Flips(x) .

This means the Diagonal Line is of a stronger order of randomness .
This is also the standard proof of an Irrational Number .

This is the standard proof of aleph numbers .
Irrational numbers ,etc
Since any number can be written in binary (0,1) , we can infer that the order of randomness is the same as aleph numbers .

This means we can use number theory in Randomness systems .
Very important .

Google Cantor (or Kantor)

Define coin-flip Randomness as Beth(0)   , analogous to Aleph(0)
Then we have at least Beth(1) , randomness an order stronger than flipping a coin .
Then we can theorize Beth(Omega) <->Aleph(Omega) .

End Quote

Cardinal Numbers .

The cardinal number is the index  x of Aleph(x) .
Cantor proved that
Aleph(n+1) = 2  ^ Aleph( n )

Where n is the cardinal number of the infinity .

Tying them together :
He also proved that
P(A) = 2^ n
Where A is any set , P(A) is the  PowerSet of A and  n is the cardinal number of set A
Thus , Cardinal Number of P(A) =(n+1)

The PowerSet of A = the Set of all subsets  of A .
This sounds fancy , but it is simply all the different ways you can combine the elements of set A . All the ways you can chop up A .
You can see it easily in a finite binomial expansion (1+1)^n = P(A) = 2^n

See : “Infinite Probes”
There we also chop and dice , using infinite series .

Can you see how it all ties together ?

Why 2 ?

This derives from the Delineation Axiom . Remember , we can only talk about something if it is distinct and identifiable from something else . This gives a minimum of 2 states : part or non-part .

That is why the Zeta-function below is described on a 2-dimensional plane , or pesky problems like Primes always boil down to 2 dimensions of some sort .

This is why the irrational numbers play such an important part in physics .
Z=a+ib describes a 2-dimensional plane useful for delineated systems without feedback systems

Its in the axiom of Delineation , dummy .

But we know that Russell proved that A+~A
The difference can be described as the Beth sequences . Since they are derivatives of summation-sequences(see below) , they define  arrows usually seen as the time-arrows .

These need not to be described a-la-dunne’s serial time , as different Beth levels address the problem adequately without multiplying hypotheses .

Self-referencing systems and Beth sequences .

A Proper Self-referencing system is of one cardinal Beth number higher than the system it derives from .
Self-referencing systems (feedback systems) can always be described as sequences of Beth systems . Ie as  Beth(x) <-> Beth(y) . The formal proof is a bit long for inclusion here .

The easiest way to see it is in Bayesian systems . If Beth(x) systems are included , Bayesian systems become orders of magnitude more effective .

Life , civilization and markets are such . See below .

Conservation Laws :
By definition , these can always be written in a form of
SomeExpression = 0

Random (Beth(0)  Walk in Euclidean 2-dimensions

This is a powerful unifying principle derived from the Delineation Axiom .

In Random Walk the Distance from the Center is = d * (n)^0.5 . This is a property of Euclidean systems .
(Where d = step , n=number of random beth(0) steps)

Immediately we can say that the only hope  of the Walker returning to the center after an infinity of Beth(0) steps is if d ~ 1/(n)^0.5 . This is the Riemann Hypothesis .

Now , see a Universum of 2-dimensional descriptors  z=a+ib

Sum all of them . Add together all the possible things that can be thus described .

This can be done as follows :
From z=a+ib Raise both sides to the e
e^(z) = e^(a) . e^i(b)
Raise both sides to the ln(j)  power where j is real integers.
j^(z) = j^(a) . e^(b/ln(j))

Now , sum them :
Zeta=Sum of j^(z) for j=1 to infinity

Now we extract all possible statements that embody some Conservation Law . Beth(1)

This means that Zeta is zero for the set of extracted statements if and only if (b/ln(j)) is of the order of Beth(0)  and a=(-1/2)

Tensors .
The above is a definition of a tensor for a discontinous function .

Riemann’s Zeta function.
This can describe any delineated system .
If Zeta = 0 , conservation laws apply .

Zeta = Sigma(1/j )^z for j=1,2,3,…,infinity and z=a+ib , where z is complex and i =(-1)^0.5
The z bit is in two dimensions as discussed above .

This function has a deep underlying meaning for infinite systems .
If you unpack the Right-Hand side on a x-yi plane you get a graph that looks like a random walk .

If every point is visited that a random walk would visit over infinity (ie all) , without clumping , then Zeta can only be non-trivially zero if a=(-1/2) .

Why (x – yi) plane ? See “Why 2 “ above . The system is fractal . Two dimensions are necessary in any delineated system .

Remember , randomwalk distance from origin = step*sqrt(number of steps) .
So if the steps = 1/ ( sqrt(number of steps) ) , then the Origin might be reached if and only if a= -1/2
This is easily proven .

If a= - 1/2 , then b can be any real function . This would include Beth(0)  and Beth(1) , but not higher orders of beth .

If a= -1/2 and b is an unreal number , then a cannot be equal to  -1/2 anymore . Conservation cannot hold at any level .

Conservation Laws can only hold for Beth(0) and Beth(1) systems .

This is forced by the two dimensions of delineation .

Mathematically , this means that Beth(2+) systems of feedbacks can only be described in terms of attractors or/and fractal systems (ie not in isolation)

Physically , conservation of energy and momentum need not hold for Beth(2+) systems .

This has an interesting corollary in decryption (unpacking) . A Beth(2) mind unpacking Beth(0) or Beth(1) encryption is functionally equivalent to Non-Conservation of Energy .

Some other consequences :
If a< -½  , then Riemannian Orbitals are described . Beth(any)
Also described as nuclei , atoms .

If a> -½  , then a diffuse cloud is described . Beth(any)
Also described as magnetic effects .

What does this mean?
Present technology uses Beth(x) technology in a rather haphazard way .(Quantum physics) .

A better understanding will bring about a  sudden change in capability .