Quantum Admittance (QA) theory initially set out to find the mechanistic basis for gravity. Its underlying theories revealed answers to pending questions including duality, entanglement, the fine structure constant, the quantization of gravity, and anomalies in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). Hypotheses for these using QA follow:
Mechanism for Planck’s Constant and Resolution of the Ultraviolet Catastrophe
Within the framework of Quantum Admittance (QA) Theory, both the mechanism for Planck’s constant and the resolution of the Ultraviolet Catastrophe are explained by the behavior of quantum dipoles. The spin of the quantum dipole governs the magnetic field’s duration and correlates with the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. When the spin rate exceeds the dipole’s physical length, it dissociates from the dipole size, limiting the energy density. This results in a mismatch between the radiation impedance and the impedance of space, reducing the energy output.
This understanding addresses the Ultraviolet Catastrophe by establishing a natural limit to energy density at high frequencies, preventing the predicted infinite energy output of classical models. Simultaneously, it provides a mechanism for the observed value of Planck’s constant, arising from the quantum interaction between dipole spin and radiative impedance.
The fine structure constant, denoted α ≈ 1/137, quantifies the coupling strength between electric charge and the vacuum field. In conventional quantum theory, α governs the splitting of energy levels in atoms and the structure of emitted radiation. Within the Charge Admittance (CA) model, α is reinterpreted as a dimensionless field admittance ratio — representing how efficiently quantized charge transitions energy across structured lattice tension (Ξ).
Electron transitions between energy states correspond to a redistribution of Ξ curvature. Emission frequency reflects the rate at which the field reorganizes, governed by the local admittance gradient. Cooling or environmental changes affect Ξ stiffness, altering this transition profile and modifying photon frequency accordingly — not via statistical relaxation, but deterministic field realignment.
In early-universe conditions or purely energetic regimes (e.g., the “first jerk” or QA origin), α may not yet exist as a fixed constant. Instead, it emerges from stable standing-wave conditions in a condensed Ξ lattice — possibly derivable from geometric field ratios rather than perturbative quantum corrections. This reframes α as a structured field constant, not a mystical universal given.
Time Dilation
Standard View: Time slows down in strong gravitational fields or at high velocities due to relativistic effects.
CA Reframe: Local changes in the speed of light arise from Ξ field gradients. A clock in a high-Ξ region runs more slowly not because time itself is distorted, but because the underlying field propagation speed (c) is locally reduced. What’s observed as time dilation is a modulation of propagation speed across a lattice—not curvature of a time coordinate.
In QA, the concept of time dilation is addressed by considering the impedance of space and its variations along different paths to observers from the charge movement or “energy event” that initiates the wave. Observers situated at the same distance from the event but in different directions may experience different time delays in perceiving the event due to these impedance differences. Additionally, the amount of gravitational lensing encountered on each path can lead to varying redshifts observed by different observers. This novel perspective offers insights into the temporal distortions caused by the varying properties of space, which may have implications for testing QA’s predictions.
This is analogous to using coax phasing lines to adjust signal phasing or delays in phased array antennas or precision test equipment, where signal path lengths are altered to make signals appear at different times.
Duality
Standard View: Particles like electrons and photons behave as both waves and particles depending on observation.
CA Reframe: There are no fundamental “particles”—only condensed field excitations shaped by lattice impedance. What appears as wave–particle duality is a misinterpretation of emission geometry vs. detection granularity. The waveform is continuous; the lattice structures the energy into localized resonant nodes at the point of interaction.
The Double Slit Experiment demonstrates that EM energy possesses properties of both waves and particles. The experiment involves a monochromatic light source, two side-by-side slits, and a screen behind them. When light passes through both slits, an interference pattern is observed, indicating wave interference. When one slit is closed, a single line of light is observed. With both slits open and a “single photon” of light released, an interference pattern gradually appears over time.
QA’s goal is to develop a mechanism that replicates the properties of photons as described by both quantum or particle physics. The double slit experiment’s results are related to the fact that EM waves have two components: magnetic flux and charge voltage. The experiment involves high impedance ports at the slots and low impedance ports at the edges, acting as measuring transducers. The slots represent far field voltage, while the edges represent near field current interactions. The double slit apparatus serves as an impedance transition for the EM wave, splitting it into charge energy and magnetic energy.
One possibility is that the impedance at which EM energy is measured is critical. Measurement of EM energy requires impedance changes, with high impedance used to measure charge or voltage and low impedance used to measure current, which generates magnetic fields. In the real world, low and high impedance are a quarter wavelength apart. In the near field, EM energy is influenced by the local impedance.
The observation reveals that the edges of the slits can cause particles to behave like waves, while energy photons passing through the center appear as dots. The impedance gradients of the slits relationship to the energy phase as it passes through determines whether a wave or particle measurement is obtained. The wave function describes the position of the energy dipole, while the particle function describes the momentum of a particle. These functions can be measured using position and momentum operators.
Another possible solution is viewing a photon from the leading end (the direction of charge movement) along the exact axis; we would not see the EM energy radiated in waves; we would see only the point charge of the photon’s wavefront compressed to a point. However, if we were to view the photon from a different angle, we would see the EM fields due to the wave-like nature of both the charge and flux interacting. In this case, the photon’s energy would be spread out in space, and we would be able to see the wave of the photon.
This perspective offers an intriguing explanation of wave-particle duality. The waves observed are not the photons themselves but rather the ripples in impedance (Z0) as they encounter changes in impedance, causing electron flow at the receptor (Einstein’s photoelectric effect). This also explains why photons don’t have to be directed straight at an observer to be seen. A single photon passing through the Z0 field generates waves propagating in various directions, similar to the energy from a dipole. Charges oscillating back and forth agitate the field. A single photon dead on does not generate these waves.
The Uniformity of the CMB
Standard View: The CMB is a relic radiation from the Big Bang, remarkably uniform across the sky—a puzzle for inflation theory to explain.
CA Reframe: The CMB is not a snapshot of a beginning, but a standing wave equilibrium from continuous energy exchange across cosmic voids. Its uniformity arises from resonant field interaction in low-Ξ environments—not from inflation, but from equilibrium field harmonics of the lattice. It’s a background hum, not a birth cry.
The QA model provides an alternative explanation for the characteristics of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), challenging the notion of a uniform expansion from a singular point. By presenting this hypothesis, the CA model challenges the prevailing understanding of the CMB and offers new insights into its origins.
Current cosmological models attribute the uniformity of the CMB to the rapid expansion of the universe during the period of cosmic inflation. According to this view, regions of the universe that were in causal contact before inflation began were able to reach thermal equilibrium, leading to the observed uniformity of the CMB.
The alternative hypotheses propose that the uniformity of the CMB may be the result of complex interactions involving energy reflections from fluctuations in spacetime impedance. Exploring the role of energy reflections and changing impedance in shaping the uniformity of the CMB opens up new avenues for research and theoretical development. By investigating these mechanisms further, we may gain deeper insights into the fundamental nature of the early universe and the processes that gave rise to the observed cosmic microwave background.
Gravitational Lensing
Standard View: Light bends around massive objects due to spacetime curvature.
CA Reframe: Light changes direction near high-Ξ regions because the local c-field gradient acts like a variable index of refraction. The path of propagation curves toward the lower-c region—not because space is bent, but because the field speed is.
Redshift
Standard View: Cosmological redshift is due to universal expansion stretching the wavelength of light over time.
CA Reframe: Redshift results from cumulative Ξ interactions across large distances. As photons propagate through varying field densities, their waveform stretches thermodynamically, modulating frequency in response to lattice resistance—not expansion, but impedance accumulation.
Entanglement and Nonlocality
Standard View: Entangled particles affect each other instantaneously at a distance, violating locality.
CA Reframe: Entanglement arises from shared initial conditions embedded in the lattice’s Ξ structure. The appearance of nonlocality is a result of interpreting results as events in spacetime rather than correlated constraints in a shared field medium.
Standard View: Dark energy drives cosmic expansion; dark matter explains gravitational effects that visible matter cannot.
CA Reframe: “Dark” phenomena are artifacts of misinterpreting Ξ field gradients and energy condensation. High-Ξ field structures produce mass-like effects (dark matter), while low-Ξ voids allow freer energy flow and waveform relaxation (mimicking dark energy). No exotic particles required—just misunderstood field behavior across Ξ density differentials.
QA eliminates the need for hypothetical entities such as dark energy and dark matter, providing a natural and alternative explanation for observed cosmic phenomena. By addressing the underlying mechanisms driving cosmic acceleration and gravitational effects, QA offers a compelling alternative to conventional dark sector theories.
Big Bang
Standard View: The universe began as an infinitely dense point (singularity) ~13.8 billion years ago, exploding into space and time.
CA Reframe: The universe is not a singular event’s aftermath, but an ongoing field-based process. High-density zones (galaxies) and low-density zones (voids) form via field dynamics—not from an explosive origin, but from resonance, symmetry breaking, and long-range lattice self-organization. The CMB reflects equilibrium, not a “bang.”
Understanding the mechanism behind gathering forces, QA offers insights into how matter and energy come together to form structures in the universe. The gathering forces inherent in energy self organization preclude the need for the Big Bang. The fact that the universe did not start from a singularity also solves the varying rate of expansion claimed to be part of the early universe’s expansion rate profile.
Cosmic Expansion
Standard View: The fabric of space itself is stretching, increasing the distance between galaxies over time.
CA Reframe: The appearance of expansion results from evolving field impedance, not stretching space. As intergalactic field densities relax (Ξ decreases), photon wavelengths stretch thermodynamically. It’s not space expanding—it’s the lattice softening and allowing energy to “breathe outward” along new lower-Ξ channels.
The fact that the universe did not start from a singularity also solves the varying rate of expansion claimed to be part of the early universe’s expansion rate profile.
Unification of forces
Standard View: The four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, weak, and strong—are distinct but potentially linked under a grand unified theory.
CA Reframe: All interactions emerge from field behaviors shaped by lattice density and geometry (Ξ). No need for distinct “forces” if resonance, impedance, and energy exchange all emerge from a common underlying structure. Unification is a feature of consistent field mechanics—not symmetry groups or particle hierarchies.
The four fundamental forces of the universe are the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity. The underlying mechanisms for these forces are not yet fully understood, but they exhibit some similarities in their patterns.
The “Unification of Gravity and the Four Forces” conjecture explores the fundamental nature of forces in the physical universe, proposing that they may be unified. The QA Theory posits that the electromagnetic forces and the gravitational force are two sides of the same coin. The electromagnetic forces play a central role in the organization of energy fields, creating gradients that facilitate the acceleration of energy, forming the basis of equivalent gravity.
The interplay of near-field and far-field concepts allows for an understanding of how these forces operate across varying ranges. In the near field, the strong nuclear force is dominant, but it quickly weakens at longer distances.
The possibility of the Strong Nuclear force being associated with very low impedance states (-j or mirrored) presents an intriguing speculation, potentially linking this force to specific conditions within the complex (-j) near field. The Weak Nuclear force, situated at the edge of the near and far fields, could be considered as “loosely coupled” inductor-like behavior, suggesting a unique interplay between different energy domains.
The unification of the four forces is a challenging proposition, but it is one that has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of the universe. By exploring the interconnections between these forces, the mechanisms that govern their behaviors, and the potential unifying principles that tie them together, we may be able to gain new insights into the fundamental fabric of energy and particles.
Black Holes
Standard View: Regions of infinite density and zero volume where gravity is so strong not even light can escape.
CA Reframe: Black holes are extreme high-Ξ structures—zones where energy condensation reaches near-maximum lattice stiffness. Light doesn’t “disappear,” but gets trapped in a region with such high impedance that transmission halts. There is no singularity—just a field state that forbids energy release. No infinities—just terminal Ξ saturation and local waveform collapse.
With Quantum Admittance, black holes represent extremely dense energy concentrations where light is slowed by an extremely dense μ0ε0 field. It can never be so dense as to stop the flow of energy, because it is the flow of energy that builds the field. The speed of energy is asymptotic to zero but never zero.
Gathering Forces
Standard View: Forces are fundamental, distinct interactions—like gravity pulling masses or electromagnetism acting on charges—mediated by field carriers or particles.
CA Reframe: What we perceive as “forces” are manifestations of energy seeking lower-Ξ configurations. Objects don’t pull or push—they migrate along impedance gradients. Fields don’t attract—they channel energy toward local minima of lattice tension. The “force” is not fundamental—it is emergent behavior from constrained energy within the medium.
Understanding the mechanism behind gathering forces, QA offers insights into how matter and energy come together to form structures in the universe. These forces can be explained by the interaction of energy and impedance gradients, resulting in the accumulation and organization of matter.
Quantization of Gravity
Standard View: Gravity resists quantization. Despite efforts (gravitons, string theory), it remains the lone force not reconciled with quantum mechanics.
CA Reframe: Gravity doesn’t need quantization if it’s not a particle-mediated force, but a field-lattice property. Changes in Ξ density reshape the local speed of light (c), which governs apparent gravitational effects. Rather than quantizing gravity, CA reveals that gravity itself is a side-effect of energy flow in nonuniform Ξ fields. Quantum behaviors emerge from lattice impedance—not the other way around.
QA addresses the quantization of gravity by recognizing that the impedance of space, which governs the speed of weightless photons, serves as the foundation of the theory. In this framework, gravity is fundamentally connected to the energy of photons due to the grid in the μ0ε0 fields, aligning with the principles of Planck’s constant. This understanding, using “quantized photons,” forms the basis for the quantization of gravity. Considering the quantization of mass and the relationship expressed by Einstein’s equation E=mc2 it follows that energy must also be quantized. Thus, the quantization of gravity can be understood in terms of the quantization of energy.