The Larson Research Center

In Larson’s development of the RST, what we call the RSt, his results are both qualitative and quantitative, but mostly qualitative, because, in part, while he had a new scalar system to work with, he didn’t have the scalar mathematics to go along with the scalar motion concepts that are necessary to develop the theory in a scientifically rigorous manner.

However, as the principles of scalar mathematics emerge, a true scalar science becomes possible in which scalar theory can be developed, exploiting the new principles of the system more systematically.

Larson’s qualitative theoretical results, including concepts of radiation, charge, magnetic moment, mass, energy, etc, enabled him to develop many quantitative results, including specifics of global interactions, such as the dynamics of inward, or gravitational motion of mass, combined with the outward, or expansion motion of galaxies, in a new cosmology.

This lead to extended concepts of the macrocosmic physical structure of the universe, such as the evolutionary sequences of star and galaxy formation, and the overall structure of the universe, as two interacting, inverse sectors, linking the isotropic emergence of high-energy cosmic rays, in the material sector, with the high-speed ejecta of material concentrated by time gravity, in the cosmic sector.

The incoming matter is then concentrated by space gravity, where it aggregates, concentrates, and eventually explodes and ejects matter at such high speeds that it re-enters the cosmic sector, as cosmic sector cosmic rays, and the same process begins anew, as gravity in that sector once again begins the process of aggregation and concentration of matter in that sector.

Consequently, we see a new cosmology, based on the reciprocity of space and time, forming the universe into an eternal cycle of radiation, matter, and energy, where the cosmic sector, based on 3D time and scalar space, “feeds” the material sector, based on 3D space and scalar time, and the material sector, in turn, “feeds” the cosmic sector, in one eternal round.

Not only is there no need for a “hot big bang” in this cosmology, but it comes with many features that match our observations, such as the flat geometry of the universe, the expansion of space and time, the properties of gravity, the ages of distant galaxies, the energy of quasars, etc.

Many people, when they read Larson’s works, are compelled by the development’s logical symmetry, and its consistency with observations, but they wonder about the quantitative side of the theory. Fortunately, as the vectorial motion of high-speed astronomical events is the primary motion under consideration, at this scale, the current LST methods of most calculations are not affected, except in the regime of greater than light speeds, which in the RST take the form of time motion.

It’s this concept of time motion, and the concept of the two interacting, inverse, sectors of the universe, which provide the basis for Larson’s new results, and they are primarily qualitative in nature, and he concentrates on their qualitative effects.

However, when it comes to the quantitative details of specific interactions, pertinent to the topic at hand, Larson uses the best data available at the time to deduce his conclusions. Of course, the scope of what one man can accomplish in such a vast field is very limited. In Volume III of his work, The Universe of Motion, Larson writes:

…the scope of the work, both in the number of subjects covered, and in the extent to which the examination of each subject has been carried, has been severely limited by the amount of time that could be allocated to the astronomical portion of a project equally concerned with many other fields of science. The omissions from the field of coverage, in addition to those having relevance only to individual objects, include (1) items that are not significantly affected by the new findings and are adequately covered in existing astronomical literature, and (2) subjects that the author simply has not thus far gotten around to considering. Attention is centered principally on the evolutionary patterns, and on those phenomena, such as the white dwarfs, quasars, and related objects, with which conventional theory is having serious difficulties.

Obviously, given a new system of physical theory, much of the early work is bound to be immature and preliminary. No one can expect anything else, yet the results Larson achieves, by applying the new system in many areas, are remarkable. Nevertheless, the value of these results lies primarially in serving as indications of the validity of the new system, and illuminating the general nature of the new processes involved.

To say that much remains to be done is an astronomically sized understatement. Certainly, however, enough has been accomplished to warrant further investigation of this scalar system, where Larson has been able to blaze the trail so to speak, and, by so doing, to deliver the outlines of exciting developments to come.

However, a significant part of that outline depends on the new definition of motion and the changes it introduces to the physical picture, but while Larson’s conclusions, in the field of physical cosmology, viz-a-viz the standard, or hot big bang cosmology, are fairly easy to compare and contrast with current theory, the same is not true at smaller scales.

Yet, much of what forms the basis of physical cosmology, the theories of the large-scale structure of the physical universe, depends upon the theories of the small-scale universe, and the comparison and contrasting of the two systems is not that easy at the microscale, because the terminology and language of the standard model of particle physics is much more daunting than that of cosmology.

Indeed, the world of particle physics has become so esoteric that it is almost impossible for anyone, at an undergraduate level, to master the key concepts, and the language used to describe them, well enough to get a clear picture of how it all works to even venture an opinion, regarding the issues arising from the processes involved.

This is because the experiments, the phenomenology, are described in terms of the theory, not in terms of observations. Therefore, instead of a universe of observed galaxies, clustered together, yet receeding away from one another and composed of various types of physical enties with a range of observable properties, describable in terms relatively easy to define, we have a universe of observed debris, created by manmade collisions, reacting to an artificial environment in which they move out at near light speed in the flash of nano-explosions, describable only in terms of esoteric equations.

These equations, describing the observed phenomena, are equations ultimately based on the principles of vectorial motion, and the language of mathematics that has been developed to express the laws of these principles. Clearly, what this does, in effect, is cloak the processes involved, because they can only be perceived through the equations that describe them.

While it’s true that the picture of reality that emerges from this study, called the standard model of particle physics, can be graphically depicted in a schematic diagram, it contains only a fraction of the information used to construct it. For outsiders, trying to understand the results of the experiments, it’s as if we had to study the stars and galaxies from pictures drawn in the sand.

The bottom line is that in order to develop the new scalar science of astrophysics, planetary physics, and cosmology, in many cases, we have to build a scalar science of particle physics, atomic physics, and nuclear physics first. To do that, we need to understand what the observers at the microscale are seeing so that we can compare our theoretical entities with the observed entities, but this task is complicated by the successes of the current theories, which tends to drive the descriptions of the observations in terms of the theories.

Thus, we have leptons and hadrons, which are all fermions, the basic building blocks of matter, but not bosons, which are the particles of radiation. Yet, these are all described in terms of fields, which for the physicist, are as real as the chair in which he sits. However, fields are not enough to totally describe the hadrons, because hadrons are not elementary as once thought, but are now considered to be composed of unobservable quarks.

There are three families of fermions, each of which is composed of different sets of two different leptons and two different quarks. The leptons and quarks of the first family, the members of which form the relatively stable matter of most of the elements in an earth environment, are the electron, and the electron neutrino, and the up and down quark, respectively.

It takes three quarks to form a hadron fermion in the first family. These hadron fermions each have three quarks, two ups and one down, or two downs and one up, the first forming the proton hadron fermion, and the second forming the neutron hadron fermion.

The atoms of successive elements of matter are composed of a successive number of hadron fermions and lepton fermions, in a fixed proportion: there is one lepton fermion for every hadron fermion that is a proton hadron fermion, and, generally, there is neutron hadron fermion for every proton hadron fermion in each atom, except the first, although this number may vary somewhat.

Now, what do we have in the RST? Larson’s RSt has subatoms of matter that consist of a system of motions: A linear vibration, which rotates in two of three dimensions, as one 2D rotation, and can also rotate in the third, orthogonal, dimension, as one 1D rotation, forms the basic system of rotations, in his system.

Atoms consist of two of these subatomic systems combined as one. Subatoms consist of one of these systems and are distinguished from one another by the number of discrete units of rotation in their system of rotations. The first system of rotations to emerge is identified with the electron, or the positron, depending upon the scalar “direction” of the rotation of its unit of motion. Successive subatomic entities emerge by adding units of rotation to the system of the previous entity. Hence, an electron becomes a proton, or a positron becomes an anti-proton, through the addition of the appropriate unit of rotation. These systems can take on different charges as well as different masses, depending upon the nature of the added unit of rotation.

So how does this RSt model compare with the standard model? Well, it predicts the periodic table of elements much better than does the standard model, and it explains the inter-atomic distances of elements better than does the standard model, but in other ways it can’t compare to the standard model.

The most important of these shortcomings is the inability to calculate the atomic spectra from it, which is the corner stone of the standard model. However, at the LRC, we think that we have identified a fundamental error in Larson’s development that will enable us to correct this deficiency, but at the cost of having to redo a lot of the theoretical development.

This would have never been possible to contemplate, if it weren’t for the discovery of the scalar mathematics that enables us to develop the theory mathematically. Though this discovery has only emerged in the last few years, it seems promising in many ways, but perhaps the most promising aspect of all is found in the shadows of the standard model that its light is casting.

We have discovered three scalar “dimensions” of motion that are analogous to the three vectorial dimensions of geometry, quite unexpectedly. These three dimensions come in several configurations similar to the configurations of quarks in the standard model (i.e. uud or ddu) that constitute units of motion that cannot be separated, or exist apart (one of the major mysteries of the standard model now considered solved by Gross and company’s concept of asymptotic freedom in QCD).

We have also discovered that the scale of these configurations forms three discrete families (another of the major mysteries of the standard model, still unsolved), and we have hints of how the electron and neutrino and photons of radiation fit into the picture as well, albeit perceived only dimly at this point.

With all this, many of Larson’s substantial contributions remain intact, especially the understanding of special relativity, the ubiquitous force of gravity, as the property of the intrinsic motion of mass, and the space/time dimensions of physical constants. In addition, we now have the new found understanding of the octonions and the Bott periodicity theorem, so we can see shadows of string theory’s Supersymmetry lurking about.

In short, there are lots of exciting qualitative results coming from the system, and we are working hard to extract the requisite quantitative results, which, if and when we do, we’ll post.