GRAND UNIFIED THEORY

[PHYSICALMODEL2017]

i had a paper , it is called (the physical model of quantum interaction between fundamental forces of nature )

it 's at

http://vixra.org/abs/1805.0280

This is a model characterized by its simplicity , it explains the events

 

running from the big bang to the  present day  and scales from the

 

  planck scale to the size of the universe   , all these in terms of one

 

sub particle and a set of four fundamental  forces  along with their

 

subsequent  interactions

 

This is a bottom up approach instead of the usual top down one  

 

 the interaction at the planck scale level holds  a determinant role

 

in the play of forces at a cosmological level

OF course comments and suggestions are welcomed  

 

 

 O

 

 

 

 

PHYSICAL MODEL2017.pdf

[Strange]

I was intrigued by your claimed relationship: age of universe = (C x P) / H

I thought that would be an odd coincidence. But, sadly, it is totally bogus. It doesn't even give a time. The result is an area: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(c+*+1+parsec)+%2F+H0

I stopped reading at that point. If you can't even get basic numerology right....

[PHYSICALMODEL2017]

dear sir

with all due respect to you and to mr wolfram

there is nothing that happens in nature which is coincidence

it does not take a great mathematician to calculate this

if the universe is expanding at 71 km / sec for every  3.28 light years ( in length )

what would be the corresponding length if it is expanding at the rate of 300000 km /sec

the result is in length and not in time units  and it expresses the total length travelled by light since the big bang

for dimensional analysis  ( c*p/H)  =  ( LT^-1 * L / (LT^-1)  ) = LENGTH

remember the units (H) for this derivation  are L/T

if you want to use the units of ( H) as ( LT^-1)/L

THEN THE UNITS OF (C)  HAVE TO BE ( LT^-1)/ L

I myself was surprised to find out this result and calculated  many times and

it all lead to the same result

 

[Strange]

24 minutes ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

remember the units (H) for this derivation  are L/T

The units of H are 1/T:

Quote

the SI unit of H₀ is s⁻¹, but it is most frequently quoted in (km/s)/Mpc, thus giving the speed in km/s of a galaxy 1 megaparsec (3.09×10¹⁹ km) away. The reciprocal of H₀ is the Hubble time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law

30 minutes ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

for dimensional analysis  ( c*p/H)  =  ( LT^-1 * L / (LT^-1)  ) = LENGTH

So you have ( c*p/H) = LT^-1 * L / T^-1 = L²

29 minutes ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

what would be the corresponding length if it is expanding at the rate of 300000 km /sec

That would be the Hubble distance: c / H0 = 13.8 billion light years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law#Hubble_length)

31 minutes ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

THEN THE UNITS OF (C)  HAVE TO BE ( LT^-1)/ L

The units of c are LT^-1 because it is a speed. I'm not sure how you can justify changing that.

[PHYSICALMODEL2017]

dear sir

again with due respect

what would be the corresponding length ( in light years) for  a universe that is expanding at the rate of 300000 km/sec  given a hubble constant is 71 km /sec per 3.28 mega parsecs?

just answer me please

in my derivation C is PER length ( observable universe radius ) not just the speed of light , just as H is 71 km/sec PER parsec

As to hubble distance , it equals ( almost ) to the age of the universe

that's what my paper says 

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

what would be the corresponding length ( in light years) for  a universe that is expanding at the rate of 300000 km/sec  given a hubble constant is 71 km /sec per 3.28 mega parsecs?

just answer me please

If you mean the distance where recessional speed is c, then the answer is the Hubble distance: c / H0 = 14 billion light years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law#Hubble_length)

Quote

in my derivation C is PER length ( observable universe radius ) not just the speed of light 

My mistake, I thought you meant c. So what is your C a measure of? In other words "what" PER length?

12 minutes ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

As to hubble distance , it equals ( almost ) to the age of the universe

Yes. That follows from its definition. (It would be exactly equal if H were constant over time.)

[Mordred]

Which H is not constant over time.

 134 pages of mistakes, well Strange has the right technique 1 to 3 pages at a time...

 You might try a spellchecker though next time you write such a lengthy article... Granted english may not be your first lanquage but its far more professional not to have continous spelling errors throughout the entire paper.

 Your use of e=mc^2 and how you apply energy later on is also bogus.

 Anyways this thread will take an incredible amount of time to cover all the mistakes I spotted. So its best to focus on a few pages at a time.

 By the way particles are not little billiard balls spinning upon themselves as you described in your document. Your understanding of quantum spin is in error, 

Edited May 16, 2018 by Mordred

[PHYSICALMODEL2017]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

If you mean the distance where recessional speed is c, then the answer is the Hubble distance: c / H0 = 14 billion light years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law#Hubble_length)

My mistake, I thought you meant c. So what is your C a measure of? In other words "what" PER length?

Yes. That follows from its definition. (It would be exactly equal if H were constant over time.)

dear sir

it means that the universe is expanding at the rate equal to C in all 3 spatial directions

this would create a sphere with a radius of 13.7 billion years which is the observable universe

5 hours ago, Strange said:

I was intrigued by your claimed relationship: age of universe = (C x P) / H

I thought that would be an odd coincidence. But, sadly, it is totally bogus. It doesn't even give a time. The result is an area: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(c+*+1+parsec)+%2F+H0

I stopped reading at that point. If you can't even get basic numerology right....

 

[Strange]

Just now, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

it means that the universe is expanding at the rate equal to C in all 3 spatial directions

So is C the speed of light or not? You said it was "something per length" but I don't know what that means.

I also don't know what it means for something to "expand at c" ...

1. Does that mean everything is moving apart from everything else at c? But that isn't what we observe.
2. Does it mean that the most distant things are moving away at c? But that isn't what we observer either.
3. Does it just mean that there is a distance at which things are moving away at c? If so, that is not a very useful observation. It would be true for any rate of expansion.

I don't know if you followed the Wolfram Alpha link, but it shows that your (C x P)/H = 4 x 10⁴² m². Which doesn't really mean anything.

[PHYSICALMODEL2017]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Which H is not constant over time.

 134 pages of mistakes, well Strange has the right technique 1 to 3 pages at a time...

 You might try a spellchecker though next time you write such a lengthy article... Granted english may not be your first lanquage but its far more professional not to have continous spelling errors throughout the entire paper.

 Your use of e=mc^2 and how you apply energy later on is also bogus.

 Anyways this thread will take an incredible amount of time to cover all the mistakes I spotted. So its best to focus on a few pages at a time.

 By the way particles are not little billiard balls spinning upon themselves as you described in your document. Your understanding of quantum spin is in error, 

dear sir

with due respect as to your remarks

1- I did not say that hubble constant is constant over time

I specifically , and explicitly said that the universe inflation speed might have been slower during the primordial time

2- I specifically and explicitly said over and over again ( no less than 3 times ) that the spin I am talking about is totally different from atomic

spin

3- there is nothing in nature that does not spin , though they might not do it like a billiard ball

4-  I already use a spell checker as I wrote this paper

  as to dark energy , there is no specific entity as such , there is just the space fabric that is expanding due to the effects of planck sacle forces

Edited May 16, 2018 by PHYSICALMODEL2017

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

specifically , and explicitly said that the universe inflation speed might have been slower during the primordial time

You seem to confuse the concepts of inflation, expansion and dark energy. These are related but very different things. 

I'm not sure you understand that expansion is a scaling effect. Or that inflation is a purely hypothetical idea. And that dark energy is not needed to explain expansion.

[Mordred]

You need a far better spellchecker. Inflation is far far faster than the Hubble expansion rate.

 The required speed to solve the flatness and horizon problem being minimal 60 efolds. Well reading this article was a poor waste of time. Your attempts to develop a GUT using this Quantons/antiquantons isn't up to standard of a model development. At least not anywhere close to a professional level.

 How you defined degrees of freedom makes no sense ie energy being restricted to 3 dimensions except for thermal energy which you have as 4 ? makes absolutely no sense....

 A dimension is any independant variable that can change without changing any other variable. Spatial dimensions such as x,y,z are 3 examples.

  You also treat spacetime as some materialistic entity composed of quantons which quite frankly makes very little sense. The mathematics you have are nowhere near sufficient to justify what would amount to as a type of eather. Which modern physics has found no evidence to support but evidence to counter the existence of.

 You then attempt to use this to replace both DE and DM but both those theories involve completely different dynamics and thermodynamic relations.

 Your use of pictures do not justify how you avoid the Kepler decline for DM. 

 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Mordred

[PHYSICALMODEL2017]

9 hours ago, Mordred said:

You need a far better spellchecker. Inflation is far far faster than the Hubble expansion rate.

 The required speed to solve the flatness and horizon problem being minimal 60 efolds. Well reading this article was a poor waste of time. Your attempts to develop a GUT using this Quantons/antiquantons isn't up to standard of a model development. At least not anywhere close to a professional level.

 How you defined degrees of freedom makes no sense ie energy being restricted to 3 dimensions except for thermal energy which you have as 4 ? makes absolutely no sense....

 A dimension is any independant variable that can change without changing any other variable. Spatial dimensions such as x,y,z are 3 examples.

  You also treat spacetime as some materialistic entity composed of quantons which quite frankly makes very little sense. The mathematics you have are nowhere near sufficient to justify what would amount to as a type of eather. Which modern physics has found no evidence to support but evidence to counter the existence of.

 You then attempt to use this to replace both DE and DM but both those theories involve completely different dynamics and thermodynamic relations.

 Your use of pictures do not justify how you avoid the Kepler decline for DM. 

 

dear sir

with due respect ,

1- can you please give me an example of my linguistic mistakes

I would appreciate those people who show me my shortcomings so that I can correct them rather than praising my errors

2- I said that the universe is expanding at a speed equals (C) in an outwardly direction not equal to H as you talk about

3- spacetime is spacefabric  and this is not my expression , it is Einstein's , maybe he was wrong also

4- I can make a 400 pages of mathematical formulations without reaching any substantive results

 abstract and  physical understanding Is always a first step and mathematical modelling is always a second step

5- the more complicated your mathematical modelling becomes , the less likely it will reach any results

6- energy cannot expand in space and in time at the same time apart from thermal energy

there must be a penalty ( constrain) on either cases

7- my model is clearly an extension of the eather notion , it is quantized in nature and this is at the origin of quantum phenomena

8- the modern physics is far from being mutually exclusive in so far as the contents of vacuum would be

9- the dimensional  energy constraining dives mater this pseudo independence of the time dimension

 

[Mordred]

Space is simply a volume. it has no substance devoid of standard model models. Spacetime is any metric under geometry where time is given dimensionality of length.

 The above definitions is how spacetime is treated under GR. The expression spacetime fabric is just that an expression and a misleading one at that. It is used simply to provide an analogy to laypersons not familiar with the mathematics under the calculus of variations. Fields are simply any set of functions or values given at each coordinate.

 Under GR this is the 4 momentum or 3 velocity. The equations of GR describes spacetime under a freefall replacement of force. This is difficult to explain to laypersons without analogy usages the origins of that usage is the rubber sheet analogy.

 Under this analogy the Lorentz equations under SR describes a scew symmetric set of transformstions between reference frames that differ from Galilean relativity in terms of vector addition.

 Mathematics is rhe lanquage of physics and is the primary tool of physics. Lacking the proper mathematics means your model is insufficient for any professional pbysicist to take seriously. A professional peer review physics paper should bevrougjly 75% mathematics with brief explanations.

 An example of spelling mistakes.

 Read your paper , how many times do you see " Qunton" instead of quantun? How many times do you see a word spelled one way then on the same paragraph spelled correctly ? I could go through the list but not a single page is free of several such mistakes. Lord knows I'm not going to proof read your grammar mistakes in entirety.

 Lorentz eather is essentially disproved by the Michelson and Morley experiments. The usage of any form of matter field has signatures that the experiment looked for and found none of.

Physics did not stop with Einstein and much of what Einstein stated was improperly understood by those relying on abstracts and analogies. The proof is in the mathematics not abstract explanations which are typically misleading.

During Einsteins time the SM model only had two particles the proton and electron... Physics today know this is incorrect.

Do not rely on knowledge decades out of date...

You approach spacetime on an eather type model you will need substantial mathematics with testable predictive proofs.

 The observable universe today far exceeds the distance light can travel by c alone. Expansion under commoving coordinate changes allows for an observable universe roughly 3 times greater than the distance of an observable universe defined by c alone. That describes the distance to the Hubble horizon and not the particle horizon.

 The Hubble cobstant itself has been decreasing since after inflation for example at z=1090 it is roughly 12,480 times greater than 70 km/Mpc/sec which is the Hubble parameter today.

That redshift value is the surface of last scatterring or CMB. 

 Your article is full of common misconceptions which you tried jigsaw puzzling together under a model. Ir is clear to me your understanding of the physics models your trying to replace ie those of particle physics, thermodynamics and GR is lacking by the types of equations you have in your paper.

 

 

 

 

[Strange]

2 hours ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

2- I said that the universe is expanding at a speed equals (C) in an outwardly direction not equal to H as you talk about

Can you explain what it means for something to "expand at c"?

Does this assume an outer edge of the universe which is moving at c? How does this fit with the fact we can observe galaxies receding at more than c?

 

 

[PHYSICALMODEL2017]

On ‎17‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 12:54 PM, Strange said:

Can you explain what it means for something to "expand at c"?

Does this assume an outer edge of the universe which is moving at c? How does this fit with the fact we can observe galaxies receding at more than c?

of course not , the universe is not like a balloon

the space fabric itself is expanding everywhere , but again at constant value equal to C

the relativity says that while C being the speed of light and that of the transmission of all the fundamental forces , the frame of

reference is irrelevant

and this is correct

but when C is a degree of freedom for energy , this must be taken into account

meaning that there is a single point in space that no where in space fabric should have  receding  speed greater than C

the neglect of this point of reference ( which is impossible to determine right now ) had solved a problem but created another , in the form of what they see as an accelerating inflation of the universe ( supernovae receding at accelerating speeds )  , while it is in fact the dominance of gravitation forces  , due to the weakness of inflationary momentum  

the relative speed between two objects cannot tell  about the inflation of the universe

two points ant different ends of the universe can still move away from each other at speed less than  2C

https://www.sciencealert.com/no-the-universe-is-not-expanding-at-an-accelerated-rate-say-physicists

 

 

[Strange]

51 minutes ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

the space fabric itself is expanding everywhere , but again at constant value equal to C

I don't understand what that means. I don't understand, in terms of simple geometry, how you can describe something as expanding at a fixed speed. Unless you are talking about points a particular distance apart.

52 minutes ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

meaning that there is a single point in space that no where in space fabric should have  receding  speed greater than C

And yet we can see galaxies that are receding at more than c.

We can also see galaxies receding at less than c.

So it makes no sense to say that expansion is happening at c. The speed depends on the distance because expansion is a scaling effect. This is just simple arithmetic, nothing to do with cosmology or physics.

54 minutes ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

hat they see as an accelerating inflation of the universe ( supernovae receding at accelerating speeds )

This is not "inflation" it is expansion. Inflation is something completely different.

Supernovae receding with increasing speeds at greater distance is not (necessarily) acceleration; it is just expansion.

Acceleration means that the rate of expansion is increasing.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

the relativity says that while C being the speed of light and that of the transmission of all the fundamental forces , the frame of

There are just two points I would like to make: The speed of light in a vacuum is "c" not "C"...this may seem pedantic, but it is pretty important, since you have submitted a paper. The second point is that before any person can claim to have any theory over riding any incumbent model/theory, they most certainly need to understand thouroughly the theory they are claiming to replace.

 

[PHYSICALMODEL2017]

36 minutes ago, beecee said:

There are just two points I would like to make: The speed of light in a vacuum is "c" not "C"...this may seem pedantic, but it is pretty important, since you have submitted a paper. The second point is that before any person can claim to have any theory over riding any incumbent model/theory, they most certainly need to understand thouroughly the theory they are claiming to replace.

 

dear sir

with due respect

1-this work is not replacing anything , it integrates an already existing knowledge and builds upon it

2- this model provides very solid physical meaning- and very reasonable one - of the theory  which no mathematical model will provide which defies many people , including some scientists

3- abstract thinking is what leads science ,  most of the major breakthroughs in science were the result of abstract thinking

  as  it should always be the first step

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

1-this work is not replacing anything

You have a different description of the expansion of the universe: you say it expands at c and that nothing is moving away from us faster than c. Both of these contradict current cosmology and the evidence.

17 minutes ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

3- abstract thinking is what leads science

Evidence and mathematical models are what leads science.

You model (such as it is) is contradicted in several ways by the evidence. It is therefore wrong.

Edited May 20, 2018 by Strange

[PHYSICALMODEL2017]

dear sir

1-as for the constant   inflation  speed of  (C) , it is with respect to a certain frame of reference  ( impossible to determine with our state of knowledge , but we already know that exists and we know also the    maximum speed  limit for anywhere in the space fabric away from this unknown reference point 

and I did not mention at all that earth is the reference point ,

2- for a universe that is spherical in shape with a constant inflation speed = (C)

the RELATIVE speed between any two points  may be greater than (C) but not more than 2 (C) as each point is heading in space  into an opposite direction

3- the relative speed between two galactic bodies cannot tell about the state of the universe's inflation since it is influenced by gravitational attraction of nearby galaxies

 

 

[beecee]

52 minutes ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

dear sir

with due respect

1-this work is not replacing anything , it integrates an already existing knowledge and builds upon it

2- this model provides very solid physical meaning- and very reasonable one - of the theory  which no mathematical model will provide which defies many people , including some scientists

3- abstract thinking is what leads science ,  most of the major breakthroughs in science were the result of abstract thinking

  as  it should always be the first step

I'll add a third point. As has been pointed out, you certainly are proposing something contradictory to the overwhelmingly, evidenced based incumbent model: That something is an unsupported and contradicted hypothetical. You do mot have a model. Oh, and really, the "sir" bit and over used formality is really unnecessary. Call me beecee.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

1-as for the constant   inflation  speed of  (C) , it is with respect to a certain frame of reference  ( impossible to determine with our state of knowledge , but we already know that exists and we know also the    maximum speed  limit for anywhere in the space fabric away from this unknown reference point 

1. It is NOT "inflation". How many more times.

2. It is "c" NOT "C". 

1 hour ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

2- for a universe that is spherical in shape with a constant inflation speed = (C)

1. There is no evidence that the universe is spherical. That would imply it had a boundary and our cosmological models rule that out.

2. It is not "inflation", it is expansion.

3. I don't see how it is possible for something to expand with a constant speed. It make no sense, just in terms of arithmetic.

4. It is "c" not "C".

1 hour ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

the RELATIVE speed between any two points  may be greater than (C) but not more than 2 (C) as each point is heading in space  into an opposite direction

We can see galaxies receding with speeds greater than c. (We can, in principle, see galaxies receding with speeds up to nearly 3c.) If we look in the other direction, we see galaxies receding with speeds greater than c. Therefore, we see galaxies that are moving apart at more than 2c. Once again, you are wrong.

1 hour ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

3- the relative speed between two galactic bodies cannot tell about the state of the universe's inflation since it is influenced by gravitational attraction of nearby galaxies

1.  It is not "inflation", it is expansion.

2. On the scales where expansion occurs, the gravitational attraction between them is negligible.

 

[PHYSICALMODEL2017]

17 hours ago, Strange said:

1. It is NOT "inflation". How many more times.

2. It is "c" NOT "C". 

1. There is no evidence that the universe is spherical. That would imply it had a boundary and our cosmological models rule that out.

2. It is not "inflation", it is expansion.

3. I don't see how it is possible for something to expand with a constant speed. It make no sense, just in terms of arithmetic.

4. It is "c" not "C".

We can see galaxies receding with speeds greater than c. (We can, in principle, see galaxies receding with speeds up to nearly 3c.) If we look in the other direction, we see galaxies receding with speeds greater than c. Therefore, we see galaxies that are moving apart at more than 2c. Once again, you are wrong.

1.  It is not "inflation", it is expansion.

2. On the scales where expansion occurs, the gravitational attraction between them is negligible.

 

1-I talked about two points , not two galaxies , you are mistaking me for that

2-the behaviour of celestial bodies is more complex , and we cannot judge the behaviour of the universe

3- a universe without some laws that govern its inflation is chaotic , the homogeneity of space fabric is a testimony against that  

 4-the inflation speed is tightly regulated by dimensional energy symmetry

it is the basic law of nature

[Strange]

2 hours ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

I talked about two points , not two galaxies , you are mistaking me for that

Not a big deal. We can only measure expansion by observing galaxies.

2 hours ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

the behaviour of celestial bodies is more complex , and we cannot judge the behaviour of the universe

Except it appears we can. The movement of celestial bodies is not random and can be accounted for (if relevant) in our calculations.

2 hours ago, PHYSICALMODEL2017 said:

universe without some laws that govern its inflation

You are talking about EXPANSION not inflation.

 

You have not addressed any of the other errors either. So lets try again, with just one question:

When you refer to "expansion at c" do you just mean that there are two points that are sufficiently far apart that they are moving apart at c?

If so, we know this, it is the Hubble distance. It is not a particularly interesting observation. There are also points that are moving apart at 2c, 3c, 4c, ...