dr_strangelove

Sorry. The site was down. It is back up now.

It can aslo be accessed at http://members.triton.net/daveb

I am developing a theory. I have derived a simple trigonometric formula that yields the exact values for every line in the Lyman series for the hydrogen atom. My values match experimental values exactly. Check it out: http://24.236.152.228:65333/A%20Unification%20Theory_d1.htm

The fat lady is about to sing. I just developed a simple trig function from my theory that gives the relativistic energy levels of the hydrogen atom. Try it: E= u((1/cosQ)-1) Where Q=inverse tan(X/n) in radians. n is the principal quantum number. u is the reduced mass of the electron: 510720.755 eV X= 1/137.043296333 and is a new, more fundamental fine structure constant. To get the value of the fine structure constant, first find Q for n=1 (this is what I call the fine structure angle), then calculate as follows alpha=(tanQ)/(cos^2(Q)) I can also get he exact form of the Dirac energy equation for hydrogen. So far I can account for the principle quantum number. The other quantum numbers just appear as variables, but I think I can get those as intergers as well. All thses formula will make perfect sense when I write it up. I'll post another message when it is available.

A canadian physicist has made a strong argument that SR is adequate to explain orbital deviations. His argumant was based on the fact that the mass of a planet changes slightly with orbital velocity. I found his paper online about a year ago. Unfortunately, I didn't bookmark it. I will post the URL when I find it. Also, i must note that according to my theory, there would be a slight difference in gravitational attraction at different points in the orbit. Perhaps you would like to tackle the problem. Another problem I could use help on is getting the relativistic hydrogenic energy equation. I believe it can be derived without a wave equation. If you look at my derivation of the Dirac matrices, you will note that there is a relationship between the components of momentum. I believe that by requiring the electron to return to the same point in time each orbit the energy equation can be derived. i actiually have made some progress.

It is very difficult to test GR, since it is a predominantly a cosmological theory. One cannot travel to distant galaxies to see if they are actually speeding away. Where's the dark matter that is necessary for it to be valid? Bending of light by a massive body was considered one of the tests. However there is an alternative explanation. Use the energy mass relationship of SR and treat the photon just like any other object in a gravitational field. It has non zero total energy (mass). The result is identical. So is space bent or is the mass of the photon causing the deviation? You don't need GR to calculate the trajectory of a photon in a gravitational field.

Someone did use GR in an attempt to predict the doppler shift. Someone else may have tried SR. I did see the results of the GR prediction and a few other attempts, but never the SR. You are correct about the GR expansion, The point, I am making is that GR has so many inputs, it is often molded or modified after the measurement. If the universe were not expanding it would be considered a valid theory. If the universe is expanding it is considered a valid theory. That isn't predictive power. The theory just has so many possible solutions, you can make it do almost anything you want. Some, rather knowledgable physicist who's name I can't remember, once said he could get GR to do his laundry. I stand firmly by my belief that GR is an overly complicated and mainly incorrect theory.

If you read my theory, you will see that I can derive Newtons Law of gravity. The derivation is based on the Dirac matrices and SR, which I derive the basis for in clear and concise terms. If you read my derivation of the Dirac matrices and then apply the same simple reasoning to space time, you will see that gravity is a natural consequence, In other words, general relativity is not an accurate theory. Look at some examples. GR predicts a Doppler shift of 10^-12 in the wrong direction for the pioneer 10 space probe. My theory predicts 7.8 x10^-8 in the proper direction. NASA’s published value is 8x10^-8 GR did not originally predict the appearant expansion of the universe. It was modified only after Hubbles discovery. My theory clearly predicts the “illusion” of velocity increasing with distance. GR cannot explain what holds galaxies together, without assuming 50 to 90 % of something called dark matter.’ My theory predicts that gravity gets stronger with distance from the center of the galaxy. My theory predicts, a region of zero space at the center of galaxies. This is what appears as a black hole. GR predicts black holes, but doesn’t require one at the center of galaxies. In short, GR is just plain an overly complicated theory with limited application. It is not a theory one should try to unify into anything. .

I have been refining the SR part of the theory and have submited it for publication. A draft is available. http://24.236.152.228:65333/relativity.doc If it doesn't answer your questions please let me know.

I am surprised at some of the responses. Some people here, apparently, know exactly what process is required to create a new theory in physics. Not only are they quick to criticize my theory, but they seem to have no respect for the English language, deciding for themselves what the definition of Unify is. Did I say I had unified everything? NO Did I say I had unified all present theories? NO As for the supposition that any new theory must contain a “wave function, nabla operator, or partial derivative”, How would you know that? Has some unification theory been published, that I am unaware of? If you are absolutely sure that these logical devices must be a part of a theory and you are attempting to contribute in that area, than I salute you. If you believe it, but have not made, and/or are not attempting to contribute constructively to that field, then I will simply ignore any more of your criticism. What I have done in my theory, clearly and unambiguously, among other things, is to develop a representation of Special Relativity that is also a representation of the Dirac matrices. This, in of itself is no small achievement. Dirac, himself, had no idea why his matrices work. He found them simply by trial and error. Prior to Einstein, the Lorentz transforms existed, but no one had a clue as to what the physical reality behind them was. This is (was) exactly the case with the Dirac matrices today. I not only gave them meaning, but showed that they result from exactly the same logic that generates SR when applied to a cyclic space time. There are many more ideas in my theory that tie many concepts in physics together. I am completely confident in my explanation of SR and the Dirac matrices. Put your money where your mouth is! I’m covering all bets.

If anyone is interested in a sneak preview of a new theory go to http://members.triton.net/daveb The theory explains many things including: SR The Dirac matrices The Hubble formula The distant space craft Doppler anomaly Spin Wave particle duality And much more