Interesting question. Both approaches are based on geometry, and are linked through the wave equation and tetrad postulate. The m theory is based on the infinitesimal line element, while UFT357 is based on Cartan geometry. The m theory is simpler and can be applied to give startlingly new results as in UFT415 ff. The m theory is very fundamental and radically new, because it uses the most general spherically symmetric space, which transforms the infinitesimal line element of special relativity to that of general relativity. The latest idea in Note 435(1) is to allocate an m function to each spectral line. The Schroedinger quantization takes place in the most general spherically symmetric space, and the method of Note 435(1) is simple, it gives the Lamb shift without having to work out the expectation value of the hamiltonian. The Einsteinian general relativity (EGR) was the first to use an m function, m(r) = 1 – r0 / r where r0 is the Schwarzschild radius. However that was a function derived in the absence of any consideration of torsion, and EGR is known to fall apart in almost a hundred independent ways in the UFT papers and books. The m theory is more powerful because it is simpler, and also uses an m(r) that can be determined from experimental data. The m theory describes the interaction of H, or any atom or molecule, with the “vacuum”. “The vacuum” is now known to be m space.

Re: 435(1): Experimental Determination of m(r)

Hi Myron,

Would you comment on a comparison of the fluid spacetime description of the Lamb shift (UFT357) with the most recent m-theory formulation; can one conclude, perhaps, that the m-theory description is more powerful, and affords additional clarity of detail?

cheers,

Russ Davis

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

This entry was posted on March 24, 2019 at 5:46 am and is filed under asott2. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.