Update at http://tastphysics.com/
http://tastphysics.com/PDF/Tast_EN.pdf

The article reviews and introduces an approach or way of exploration for the unification of the most important theories in physics. Step by step, the exploration encompasses two postulates that it puts forward as the principles of a new theory which underpins relativity and quantum mechanics: (I) deflection occurs between any two coordinates with motion relative to one another; (II) the space-time area (product of length and time) is invariant under deflection. Based on these postulates, the paper interprets the conception of Einstein’s theory for length contraction and time dilation in a simple manner; it presents a preliminary cause for stochastic phenomena in the quantum world and derives Schrödinger’s equation from a complex function in which the deflection of space reduces to an amplitude probability distribution. In the last part, a new precession formula for the planets is presented and the results calculated using the new equation are detailed in a table.

Thank you!

Dai Chuanjiang <cuisiling@gmail.com> wrote:

> Update at http://tastphysics.com/ http://tastphysics.com/PDF/Tast_EN.pdf
>
> The article reviews and introduces an approach or way of exploration for
> the unification of the most important theories in physics. Step by step,
> the exploration encompasses two postulates that it puts forward as the
> principles of a new theory which underpins relativity and quantum
> mechanics: (I) deflection occurs between any two coordinates with motion
> relative to one another; (II) the space-time area (product of length and
> time) is invariant under deflection. Based on these postulates, the paper
> interprets the conception of Einstein's theory for length contraction and
> time dilation in a simple manner; it presents a preliminary cause for
> stochastic phenomena in the quantum world and derives Schrödinger's
> equation from a complex function in which the deflection of space reduces
> to an amplitude probability distribution. In the last part, a new
> precession formula for the planets is presented and the results calculated
> using the new equation are detailed in a table.

You should have compared your formula with the GR formula as well.
I don't know where you obtain your data,
but yours are erroneous and/or long out of date.

A modern value is for the Earth for example is:
GR prediction 3.83868" per century,
observed precession is 3.8387±0.0004"/cy.
Both your prediction of 4.00 and your observed value of 5±1.2
are grossly in error.

Your theory stands falsified,

Jan

PS And yes, these things are really known that accurately, nowadays.

On Friday, 3 March 2023 at 14:27:13 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Dai Chuanjiang <cuis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Update at http://tastphysics.com/ http://tastphysics.com/PDF/Tast_EN.pdf
> >
> > The article reviews and introduces an approach or way of exploration for
> > the unification of the most important theories in physics. Step by step,
> > the exploration encompasses two postulates that it puts forward as the
> > principles of a new theory which underpins relativity and quantum
> > mechanics: (I) deflection occurs between any two coordinates with motion
> > relative to one another; (II) the space-time area (product of length and
> > time) is invariant under deflection. Based on these postulates, the paper
> > interprets the conception of Einstein's theory for length contraction and
> > time dilation in a simple manner; it presents a preliminary cause for
> > stochastic phenomena in the quantum world and derives Schrödinger's
> > equation from a complex function in which the deflection of space reduces
> > to an amplitude probability distribution. In the last part, a new
> > precession formula for the planets is presented and the results calculated
> > using the new equation are detailed in a table.
> You should have compared your formula with the GR formula as well.
> I don't know where you obtain your data,
> but yours are erroneous and/or long out of date.
>
> A modern value is for the Earth for example is:
> GR prediction 3.83868" per century,

No it is not. For real predictions you're using
a model assuming Euclidean space, i.e.
different than your GR shit.

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 9:27:13 PM UTC+8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Dai Chuanjiang <cuis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Update at http://tastphysics.com/
http://tastphysics.com/PDF/Tast_EN.pdf
> >

> You should have compared your formula with the GR formula as well.
> I don't know where you obtain your data,
> but yours are erroneous and/or long out of date.
>
> A modern value is for the Earth for example is:
> GR prediction 3.83868" per century,
> observed precession is 3.8387ą0.0004"/cy.
> Both your prediction of 4.00 and your observed value of 5ą1.2
> are grossly in error.
>
Thank you for your reply.

You can find the derivation of precession formula at http://tastphysics.com/PDF/Tast_CN.pdf . it is in Chinese, but the math derivation is understandable.

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:27:13 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip>

> A modern value is for the Earth for example is:
> GR prediction 3.83868" per century, observed precession is 3.8387ą0.0004"/cy.

<snip>

Another proof of how mentally deranged a fanatic relativist IS (YOU).

General relativity CAN'T PREDICT SHIT about this phenomenon. And you are so false, deceiver and LIAR
that even use SIX DIGITS and project it to 100 years, when GR CAN'T EVEN THEORETICALLY CALCULATE
a 2-body problem on Mercury, resorting to use the Sun and a fucking massless test particle as Mercury.

Now you come here TO ASSERT GR predictions in the same range of accuracy than astronomical observations,
not including ANY SINGLE MAJOR PLANET except a massless test particle posing as the Earth.

Your deceptions, lies and shameless propaganda about GR and its capability to predict SHIT is outrageous.

You should face a trial that will prove that you are MENTALLY SICK, DEEPLY SICK. BEYOND ANY POSSIBLE CURE.

Dai Chuanjiang <cuisiling@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 9:27:13?PM UTC+8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Dai Chuanjiang <cuis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Update at http://tastphysics.com/
> http://tastphysics.com/PDF/Tast_EN.pdf
> > >
>
> > You should have compared your formula with the GR formula as well.
> > I don't know where you obtain your data,
> > but yours are erroneous and/or long out of date.
> >
> > A modern value is for the Earth for example is:
> > GR prediction 3.83868" per century,
> > observed precession is 3.8387?0.0004"/cy.
> > Both your prediction of 4.00 and your observed value of 5?1.2
> > are grossly in error.
> >
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> You can find the derivation of precession formula at
> http://tastphysics.com/PDF/Tast_CN.pdf . it is in Chinese, but the math
> derivation is understandable.

I won't look. The final result is obviously erroneous,
so the derivation must be too,

Jan

> Thank you for your reply.
>
> You can find the derivation of precession formula at http://tastphysics.com/PDF/Tast_CN.pdf . it is in Chinese, but the math derivation is understandable.

From online physics class:

....
With the formula (16), we can figure out the precession angular speed of Mercury orbit to be 43.08" per century. It can be also used to calculate the precession angular speed of other planets，asteroids, satellites, binary system and similar.

Apart from planetary orbital perturbation in solar system, there are other perturbation phenomena in binary-star system. Two astronomers, E. F. Guinan and F. P. Maloney, in Villanova University of USA in 1985 found that the accumulated precession angular of the binary star DI Her in 84 years was much lower than the calculated amount with GTR. Astronomers could hardly find out a fair explanation for the fact. We can use formula (16) to solve this problem, getting 0.66 degree, so closely matching 0.64 degree of the observed fact, compared with 2.34 degree calculated with GTR [Edward. F. Guinan and Frank. P. Maloney Astronomical Journal v 90 (1985) p 1519].

We have discussed red shift in GTR, Light bent in gravitation field and Mercury orbital perturbation. So far we have answered some questions mentioned at the beginning of this Chapter and hope that you have briefly understood TAST...

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:00:08 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:27:13 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > A modern value is for the Earth for example is:
> > GR prediction 3.83868" per century, observed precession is 3.8387ą0.0004"/cy.
> <snip>
>
> Another proof of how mentally deranged a fanatic relativist IS (YOU).
>
> General relativity CAN'T PREDICT SHIT about this phenomenon.

You keep posting magic mantras as if they could make things happen
in the real world. Of course GR predicts a certain number, it's just
a calculation.

> You should face a trial that will prove that you are MENTALLY SICK, DEEPLY SICK. BEYOND ANY POSSIBLE CURE.

Your use of all caps indicates this stuff really bothers you. Given the
fact that nothing will change by your tantrum throwing and the fact that
relativity (both SR and GR) will never go away, I'd consult a therapist,
or perhaps a doctor if I were you.

--
Jan

On Saturday, 4 March 2023 at 20:58:48 UTC+1, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:00:08 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:27:13 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > A modern value is for the Earth for example is:
> > > GR prediction 3.83868" per century, observed precession is 3.8387ą0.0004"/cy.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Another proof of how mentally deranged a fanatic relativist IS (YOU).
> >
> > General relativity CAN'T PREDICT SHIT about this phenomenon.
> You keep posting magic mantras as if they could make things happen
> in the real world. Of course GR predicts a certain number, it's just
> a calculation.
> > You should face a trial that will prove that you are MENTALLY SICK, DEEPLY SICK. BEYOND ANY POSSIBLE CURE.
> Your use of all caps indicates this stuff really bothers you. Given the
> fact that nothing will change by your tantrum throwing and the fact that
> relativity (both SR and GR) will never go away

And the fact that Jan is a queen of England...

On 3/3/2023 11:00 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:27:13 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> A modern value is for the Earth for example is:
>> GR prediction 3.83868" per century, observed precession is 3.8387ą0.0004"/cy.
>
> <snip>
>
> Another proof of how mentally deranged a fanatic relativist IS (YOU).
>
> General relativity CAN'T PREDICT SHIT about this phenomenon. And you are so false, deceiver and LIAR
> that even use SIX DIGITS and project it to 100 years, when GR CAN'T EVEN THEORETICALLY CALCULATE
> a 2-body problem on Mercury, resorting to use the Sun and a fucking massless test particle as Mercury.

Of course GR can, and did. Doing so and solving the Mercury precession
problem was one of Einstein's many successes.
>
> Now you come here TO ASSERT GR predictions in the same range of accuracy than astronomical observations,

Of course. The number of digits used depends on the accuracy of all the
known parameters, mass of the sun, Mercury orbital parameters etc.

> not including ANY SINGLE MAJOR PLANET except a massless test particle posing as the Earth.

Any engineer knows about using simplifications, as long as it can be
shown such simplifications don't introduce errors exceeding other
measurement errors etc.
> You should face a trial that will prove that you are MENTALLY SICK, DEEPLY SICK. BEYOND ANY POSSIBLE CURE.

That gets you kookpoints on the crackpot index. I'm not going to bother
to look up how many kookpoints you earned, do so yourself.

On Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 05:02:29 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 3/3/2023 11:00 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 10:27:13 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> A modern value is for the Earth for example is:
> >> GR prediction 3.83868" per century, observed precession is 3.8387ą0.0004"/cy.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Another proof of how mentally deranged a fanatic relativist IS (YOU).
> >
> > General relativity CAN'T PREDICT SHIT about this phenomenon. And you are so false, deceiver and LIAR
> > that even use SIX DIGITS and project it to 100 years, when GR CAN'T EVEN THEORETICALLY CALCULATE
> > a 2-body problem on Mercury, resorting to use the Sun and a fucking massless test particle as Mercury.
> Of course GR can, and did.

No more than adjusting clocks to your ISO is
"Newton mode", stupid Mike.

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:18:39 PM UTC+8, Dai Chuanjiang wrote:
> Update at http://tastphysics.com/
> http://tastphysics.com/PDF/Tast_EN.pdf
>
To find a common framework to reconcile or common principles to underlie both relativity and quantum mechanics, these postulates, as principle (I) and (II), can explain both relativity and quantum mechanics mathematically and conceptually without contradiction or paradox, and are already verified by light aberration, an astronomical phenomenon discovered for almost 300 years, and length contraction and time dilation in experiments without any falsification.

On 2023-03-07 12:45:49 +0000, Dai Chuanjiang said:

> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:18:39 PM UTC+8, Dai Chuanjiang wrote:
>> Update at http://tastphysics.com/>
>> http://tastphysics.com/PDF/Tast_EN.pdf>To find a common framework to
>> reconcile or common principles to underlie both relativity and quantum
>> mechanics, these postulates, as principle (I) and (II), can explain
>> both relativity and quantum mechanics mathematically and conceptually
>> without contradiction or paradox, and are already verified by light
>> aberration, an astronomical phenomenon discovered for almost 300 years,
>> and length contraction and time dilation in experiments without any
>> falsification.

And your point for discussion is ...?

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2023-03-07 12:45:49 +0000, Dai Chuanjiang said:
>
> > On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:18:39?PM UTC+8, Dai Chuanjiang wrote:
> >> Update at http://tastphysics.com/>
> >> http://tastphysics.com/PDF/Tast_EN.pdf>To find a common framework to
> >> reconcile or common principles to underlie both relativity and quantum
> >> mechanics, these postulates, as principle (I) and (II), can explain
> >> both relativity and quantum mechanics mathematically and conceptually
> >> without contradiction or paradox, and are already verified by light
> >> aberration, an astronomical phenomenon discovered for almost 300 years,
> >> and length contraction and time dilation in experiments without any
> >> falsification.
>
> And your point for discussion is ...?

Nothing to discuss. It is just advertising junk science,

Jan

On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 14:35:39 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2023-03-07 12:45:49 +0000, Dai Chuanjiang said:
> >
> > > On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:18:39?PM UTC+8, Dai Chuanjiang wrote:
> > >> Update at http://tastphysics.com/>
> > >> http://tastphysics.com/PDF/Tast_EN.pdf>To find a common framework to
> > >> reconcile or common principles to underlie both relativity and quantum
> > >> mechanics, these postulates, as principle (I) and (II), can explain
> > >> both relativity and quantum mechanics mathematically and conceptually
> > >> without contradiction or paradox, and are already verified by light
> > >> aberration, an astronomical phenomenon discovered for almost 300 years,
> > >> and length contraction and time dilation in experiments without any
> > >> falsification.
> >
> > And your point for discussion is ...?
> Nothing to discuss. It is just advertising junk science,

Anyway, the only kind of discussion one could expect from
those like you or Athel are insults and slanders.

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:14:02 PM UTC+8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-03-07 12:45:49 +0000, Dai Chuanjiang said:
>
> > On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:18:39 PM UTC+8, Dai Chuanjiang wrote:
> >> Update at http://tastphysics.com/>
> >> http://tastphysics.com/PDF/Tast_EN.pdf>To find a common framework to
> >> reconcile or common principles to underlie both relativity and quantum
> >> mechanics, these postulates, as principle (I) and (II), can explain
> >> both relativity and quantum mechanics mathematically and conceptually
> >> without contradiction or paradox, and are already verified by light
> >> aberration, an astronomical phenomenon discovered for almost 300 years,
> >> and length contraction and time dilation in experiments without any
> >> falsification.
> And your point for discussion is ...?
>
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

You may or may not agree to the introduction or abstract of an article stated above.
points to discuss:

1. Are the postulates verified or not?
2. Can the postulates underlie relativity and QM?

Le 07/03/2023 à 16:14, Dai Chuanjiang a écrit :
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:14:02 PM UTC+8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-03-07 12:45:49 +0000, Dai Chuanjiang said:
>>
>> > On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:18:39 PM UTC+8, Dai Chuanjiang wrote:
>> >> Update at http://tastphysics.com/>
>> >> http://tastphysics.com/PDF/Tast_EN.pdf>To find a common framework to
>> >> reconcile or common principles to underlie both relativity and quantum
>> >> mechanics, these postulates, as principle (I) and (II), can explain
>> >> both relativity and quantum mechanics mathematically and conceptually
>> >> without contradiction or paradox, and are already verified by light
>> >> aberration, an astronomical phenomenon discovered for almost 300 years,
>> >> and length contraction and time dilation in experiments without any
>> >> falsification.
>> And your point for discussion is ...?
>>
>> --
>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
>
> You may or may not agree to the introduction or abstract of an article stated
> above.
> points to discuss:
>
> 1. Are the postulates verified or not?

Mine are.

> 2. Can the postulates underlie relativity and QM?

Mine, yes.

R.H.

--
"Mais ne nous trompons pas :
il n'y a pas de violence qu'avec des armes : il y a des situations de
violence."
Abbé Pierre
Δ₀₁₂"<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=BDYbq11NBp-BK9BC_Tg5LgrSmww@jntp>

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 12:49:44 AM UTC+8, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 07/03/2023 à 16:14, Dai Chuanjiang a écrit :
> > On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 9:14:02 PM UTC+8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2023-03-07 12:45:49 +0000, Dai Chuanjiang said:
> >>
> >> > On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:18:39 PM UTC+8, Dai Chuanjiang wrote:
> >> >> Update at http://tastphysics.com/>
> >> >> http://tastphysics.com/PDF/Tast_EN.pdf>To find a common framework to
> >> >> reconcile or common principles to underlie both relativity and quantum
> >> >> mechanics, these postulates, as principle (I) and (II), can explain
> >> >> both relativity and quantum mechanics mathematically and conceptually
> >> >> without contradiction or paradox, and are already verified by light
> >> >> aberration, an astronomical phenomenon discovered for almost 300 years,
> >> >> and length contraction and time dilation in experiments without any
> >> >> falsification.
> >> And your point for discussion is ...?
> >>
> >> --
> >> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
> >
> > You may or may not agree to the introduction or abstract of an article stated
> > above.
> > points to discuss:
> >
> > 1. Are the postulates verified or not?
> Mine are.
> > 2. Can the postulates underlie relativity and QM?
> Mine, yes.
>
> R.H.
>
>
Good insight!

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:45:51 PM UTC+8, Dai Chuanjiang wrote:
> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:18:39 PM UTC+8, Dai Chuanjiang wrote:
> > Update at http://tastphysics.com/
> > http://tastphysics.com/PDF/Tast_EN.pdf
> >
> To find a common framework to reconcile or common principles to underlie both relativity and quantum mechanics, these postulates, as principle (I) and (II), can explain both relativity and quantum mechanics mathematically and conceptually without contradiction or paradox, and are already verified by light aberration, an astronomical phenomenon discovered for almost 300 years, and length contraction and time dilation in experiments without any falsification.

Furthermore, the peculiar quantum phenomena, such as entanglement, particle-wave duality, double slit interference and Schrödinger's cat, as well as unification of gravitation with other interactions will be discussed and interpreted by taking into account the postulates as new principles and concepts. The deflective or rotating angle in the postulate as the first principle is just the hidden variable we have expected for many decades.

Both real part and imaginary part of the complex function in the article originate from the postulates as principle (I) and (II). It may be incomplete to derive the Schrödinger equation without discussing the role of imaginary part in quantum theory. We have wondered for many decades what is hidden behind the Schrödinger equation. Considering the imaginary part of the complex function, we can make new discoveries and interpretations of the phenomena such as consciousness, life, dark matter & energy, elementary particles and origin & evolution of universe. The advance of physics is the work of the entire science community.

On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 6:04:15 PM UTC+8, Dai Chuanjiang wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:45:51 PM UTC+8, Dai Chuanjiang wrote:
> > On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:18:39 PM UTC+8, Dai Chuanjiang wrote:
> > > Update at http://tastphysics.com/
> > > http://tastphysics.com/PDF/Tast_EN.pdf
> > >
> > To find a common framework to reconcile or common principles to underlie both relativity and quantum mechanics, these postulates, as principle (I) and (II), can explain both relativity and quantum mechanics mathematically and conceptually without contradiction or paradox, and are already verified by light aberration, an astronomical phenomenon discovered for almost 300 years, and length contraction and time dilation in experiments without any falsification.
> Furthermore, the peculiar quantum phenomena, such as entanglement, particle-wave duality, double slit interference and Schrödinger's cat, as well as unification of gravitation with other interactions will be discussed and interpreted by taking into account the postulates as new principles and concepts. The deflective or rotating angle in the postulate as the first principle is just the hidden variable we have expected for many decades.
>
> Both real part and imaginary part of the complex function in the article originate from the postulates as principle (I) and (II). It may be incomplete to derive the Schrödinger equation without discussing the role of imaginary part in quantum theory. We have wondered for many decades what is hidden behind the Schrödinger equation. Considering the imaginary part of the complex function, we can make new discoveries and interpretations of the phenomena such as consciousness, life, dark matter & energy, elementary particles and origin & evolution of universe. The advance of physics is the work of the entire science community.

Update:

A conversation program by three experts has been launched on this website at https://www.tastphysics.com/cyb_en.htm

Tentative topics:

1. Space Frames, Symmetry and Correlation

2. Space of Deflection & Space of Rotation

3. Concurrence & Causality

4. Beyond light speed--A Greatest Finding

5. Strange quantum phenomena

6. Hidden Variable - The Key in God's Hand

7. Inertial and non-inertial frames

8. Gravitation and interactions

9. Relationship of Concepts and logic chain

9. Simplicity & paradigm

10. Underlying Logics of Physics & Philosophy

11. Verification of Fundamental Principles

12. Looking ahead

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 8:04:45 PM UTC+8, Dai Chuanjiang wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 6:04:15 PM UTC+8, Dai Chuanjiang wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:45:51 PM UTC+8, Dai Chuanjiang wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:18:39 PM UTC+8, Dai Chuanjiang wrote:
> > > > Update at http://tastphysics.com/
> > > > http://tastphysics.com/PDF/Tast_EN.pdf
> > > >
> > > To find a common framework to reconcile or common principles to underlie both relativity and quantum mechanics, these postulates, as principle (I) and (II), can explain both relativity and quantum mechanics mathematically and conceptually without contradiction or paradox, and are already verified by light aberration, an astronomical phenomenon discovered for almost 300 years, and length contraction and time dilation in experiments without any falsification.
> > Furthermore, the peculiar quantum phenomena, such as entanglement, particle-wave duality, double slit interference and Schrödinger's cat, as well as unification of gravitation with other interactions will be discussed and interpreted by taking into account the postulates as new principles and concepts. The deflective or rotating angle in the postulate as the first principle is just the hidden variable we have expected for many decades.
> >
> > Both real part and imaginary part of the complex function in the article originate from the postulates as principle (I) and (II). It may be incomplete to derive the Schrödinger equation without discussing the role of imaginary part in quantum theory. We have wondered for many decades what is hidden behind the Schrödinger equation. Considering the imaginary part of the complex function, we can make new discoveries and interpretations of the phenomena such as consciousness, life, dark matter & energy, elementary particles and origin & evolution of universe. The advance of physics is the work of the entire science community.
> Update:
>
> A conversation program by three experts has been launched on this website at https://www.tastphysics.com/cyb_en.htm
>
> Tentative topics:
>
> 1. Space Frames, Symmetry and Correlation
>
> 2. Space of Deflection & Space of Rotation
>
> 3. Concurrence & Causality
>
> 4. Beyond light speed--A Greatest Finding
>
> 5. Strange quantum phenomena
>
> 6. Hidden Variable - The Key in God's Hand
>
> 7. Inertial and non-inertial frames
>
> 8. Gravitation and interactions
>
> 9. Relationship of Concepts and logic chain
>
> 9. Simplicity & paradigm
>
> 10. Underlying Logics of Physics & Philosophy
>
> 11. Verification of Fundamental Principles
>
> 12. Looking ahead

The imaginary part of the complex function is the implicit part of the derivation of the Schrödinger equation, from which we can deduce that consciousness is hidden in quantum phenomena.

Chinese scientists published a paper on January 24, 2022, experimentally ruling out the real-valued standard formalism of quantum theory (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.040403). This achievement further proved the statement that the imaginary part of the complex function was part of the source of quantum theory made by Dr Cui Silong when he derived the Schrödinger equation using analytical space-time theory more than 20 years ago.