Do you have a new theory?

[Norman Albers]

Ah, thanks, I shall.

[swansont]

Elas, I moved you last post to the thread you linked to; discussion of your work beongs there, not here.

[elas]

swansont

 

My apologies. As usual I replied in haste and, as I had both forums open, used the wrong message board. So far this session I have had to break off on three occasions; but this debate is so absorbing that I am determined to keep going until I run out of (fourth interruption!) ideas and I do appreciate the time you spend on my poorly presented proposals.

regards

elas

[DaverH]

New Hypothesis: “Relativistic medium from unified energy vector” is written with Maple10, and posted online in Maple’s Application Center: http://www.maplesoft.com/applications/app_center_view.aspx?AID=1981

 

And introduced conversationally in a YouTube video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=qUzdQy3Wn2I

 

The paper presents an alternative to string theory in defining a relativistic medium for the physical interactions. In doing so it implies the physical interactions are a derivative of the consciousness process…which is more consistent with the experiments in Quantum Philosophy just as John Horgan has written notably for Scientific American. Where from these experiments, on the non-local observer-participant nature of quantum mechanics, many researchers in the field have concluded, such as Wheeler now holding Einstein’s chair at Princeton, the universe is more like “a giant thought” than anything else.

 

EXTENDED ABSTRACT: Since every valid physical entity must have, on some basis, a gravitoelectromagnetic flux distribution in all 3 spatial dimensions in its own inertial frame, the quantum must therefore have, in addition to the familiar 2 transverse flux plane dimensions, a 3rd spatial distribution along axis of travel in its own inertial frame. In view of 1934 Tolman experiment finding light-matter gravitational attraction to be 2X the familiar Newtonian matter-matter attraction, the hypothesis adds a gravitational cross product to the familiar Poynting-Heaviside electromagnetic cross product, as an alternative to that 1st proposed by Heaviside. The new cross product has the advantage of Special Relativity limiting the transverse expansion of the fields to ¼ the quantum wavelength…as opposed to General Relativity where the stress-energy tensor of every particle-wave curves space out infinitely in all directions, even ahead of the quantum already traveling at c. Further equivalent to every car creating its own road, or metric, in the same 4D space, where space has then lost its meaning, which are the reasons why it is said GR breaks down on the microscopic scale.

 

Consequently since light waves are not continuous, but come in wavetrains, the quantum is postulated to be a wavetrain having a coherence length = one wavelength. The resulting unified gravitoelectromagnetic flux distribution then forms a common basis for light deflection by the sun & pair production, recalling Eddington solar deflection found to be equivalent to 2X Newtonian force, same as Tolman. In pair production, when -/+ quantum lobes pass close to nucleus, spin moment yields spherical expansion into electron/positron field configurations. The electron field is not seen to extend from zero radius, leading to infinite force, but extending radially from Planck radius.

 

A thought experiment test between the hypothesis and GR is proposed: In view of Tolman it is well known GR predicts parallel light beams should attract with 4X the Newtonian force. The well known NULL result is much simpler explained by means of the hypothesis than in a problematic Phys Rev D paper by Faraoni & Dumse: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9811052

 

Recalling that the entity which provides the restoring force for a wave is defined to be the medium for wave...the gravitational cross product is then the medium for electromagnetic cross product, and electromagnetic the medium for gravitational...wherein there is no string. Their relative medium, when viewed from any external frame, via the Minkowski metric of SR, becomes the relativistic medium from the unified energy vector.

 

Accordingly this relativistic medium hypothesis presents the following friendly challenge to all string medium theorists: Kaku, Greene, Randall, Hawking, et al...recall the Feynman lectures...in answer to the question of what are the strings made of to provide evidence for string theory's 1st postulate, you can do no better than: "It's turtles all the way down!"

 

An alternative presents itself then to the experimentally challenged string/M-theory unified mediums, where eventually all string theorists are going to have to admit they're postulating a "thinking" string-membrane medium. There are of course still only two ways to go on this. Either the consciousness process is a derivative of the physical process, or as Bohr put it: "There is no quantum world."

 

Clearly string theorists are in danger here of being condemned to an eternity of withering away at the helm of their own "Flying Dutchman" ghost ship in an endless search across endless seas for that set of hidden underlying M-theory equations, and even more hidden underlying Newtonian-like potential equations guiding the collapse of the wave function...the latter necessary to describe the non-local observer-participant results of the experiments in Quantum Philosophy on a deterministic basis.

 

The hypothesis can be seen to spy out a much simplified course for a more inclusive perspective to navigate towards a Grand Unified Theory.

 

Best Regards

[Klaynos]

DaverH have you read the first post of this thread?

[DaverH]

The requirement Severian sets in #1 for posting a new theory in this forum is well taken Klaynos, wherein: “You have to make sure that your new theory does everything at least as well as the old theory, otherwise the old theory remains more attractive. This is very difficult mainly because our current theories are so spectacularly good in their predictions.” However, improving the accuracy of the gyromagnetic ratio g is just given as an example, and so is not necessarily the place to start.

 

This new hypothesis: Relativistic medium from unified energy vector starts with the familiar Poynting-Heaviside energy flux vector S. It is all seen to start with energy. Given that every valid physical entity must have a gravitoelectromagnetic flux distribution, on some basis, in all 3 spatial dimensions in its own inertial frame…the quantum must therefore have, in addition to the familiar 2 transverse flux plane dimensions of S, a flux distribution along the 3rd longitudinal dimension of its axis of travel, in its own inertial rest frame. My paper, its formulas and animations, are also presented conversationally in an introductory youtube.com video.

 

The justification for the present reformulation of S of Eq. 2 starts with the 1934 Tolman experiment, which found the light-matter gravitational attraction to be 2X the familiar Newtonian matter-matter attraction. Furthermore, the unopposed transverse expansion of the electric and magnetic fields has slipped under the radar as the only case of a force acting unopposed by an equal and opposite force…in clear violation of Newton’s 3rd Law. A gravitational cross product is added to S, installing an upgrade to fix that, and in fact is presented as an alternative to the gravitational cross product first proposed by Heaviside. The new gravitational cross product has the advantage of Special Relativity to limit the transverse expansion of the fields to ¼ the wavelength of the quantum. Meaning as the quantum travels longitudinally from node to anti-node, it expands transversely by the same distance, which is ¼ the quantum wavelength. This is opposed to General Relativity, where as this forum's readers know, the stress-energy tensor of every particle-wave curves space out infinitely in all directions, even out ahead of the quantum already traveling at c. Further equivalent to every particle-wave “car” creating its own road, or metric, in the same 4D space, where space has then lost its meaning, which is why it is said GR breaks down on the microscopic scale.

 

Consequently, since electromagnetic energy comes in wavetrains, which is most evident in the light spectrum, the quantum is postulated to be a wavetrain with a coherence length = one wavelength. A common basis is seen then for the solar deflection of light by the 1919 Eddington experiment, and the light-matter gravitational attraction of the 1934 Tolman experiment, both equivalent to 2X the Newtonian gravitational force.

 

The reader can no doubt recall it being taught that light, or electromagnetic energy, is the only wave that propagates without a medium. The present reformulation of S improves on that, recalling the entity which provides the restoring force for a wave is defined to be the medium for the wave. The gravitational cross product is then the medium for the electromagnetic cross product, and the electromagnetic the medium for the gravitational…wherein there is no string. This mutually relative medium, when viewed from any external frame, via the Minkowski metric of SR, then becomes the relativistic medium from the unified energy vector.

 

AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST between the hypothesis and the general theory is proposed, where the general theory doesn’t really make such a spectacularly good prediction…or follow-up explanation for the null result. In view of Tolman it is well known GR predicts parallel light beams should attract with 4X the Newtonian force no matter how far apart they are. The hypothesis predicts there will be no gravitational attraction between the beams until their radial probability distributions overlap significantly, which only occurs under ½ wavelength separation. The well known NULL result to this parallel laser beam experiment is then much simpler explained by means of the hypothesis, than in a problematic Physical Reveiw D paper by Faraoni & Dumse. Problematic in that a gravitational analogy is made to the Lorentz force, where the beams of photons are modeled as rest mass electrons traveling at c, which the reader might agree is about as fundamental a violation of SR as can be made to save GR.

 

The direction this relativistic medium hypothesis is seen to be heading in, starts therefore by establishing a common basis for the solar deflection of light and pair production. Wherein the -E/+E quantum lobes when passing in close proximity to a nucleus, gain a spin moment yielding a spherical expansion of the quantum gravitoelectromagnetic flux into the electron/positron potential energy rest mass field configurations…of course capable of annihilating, or recombining, back into multiple kinetic quantum configurations. The electron -e field is not seen to extend from zero radius, leading back to the infinite force problem, but extending radially from the Planck radius. And herein lies another major contrast in physical interpretation between the hypothesis and string/M-theory. The interpretation of the hypothesis is that the Planck length is the lower limit, beyond which nothing shorter exists…whereas of course several of the variations of string/M-theory postulate their strings are of the Planck length.

 

Finally, any true unified theory must ultimately confront the mind-body problem…quantified nowhere else better than in the non-local observer-participant experiments of quantum mechanics. As reported on notably by Horgan in his 1992 Scientific American article Quantum Philosophy. In this respect all string/M-theorists: Kaku, Greene, Randall, Hawking, et al, are of course ultimately going to have to admit they're postulating a "thinking" string-membrane unified medium. Tracing the original debate back to Bohr and Einstein, there are still only two ways to go on this: Either consciousness is a derivative of the physical interactions, or as equally difficult as quantum mechanics seems to comprehend, what would be more compatible with these experimental results, is the physical interactions are a derivative of the consciousness process somehow.

 

Clearly string theorists are in danger here of being condemned to an eternity of withering away at the helm of their own "Flying Dutchman" ghost ship in an endless search across endless seas for that set of hidden underlying M-theory equations, and even more hidden underlying Newtonian-like potential-field-force equations guiding the collapse of the wave function...the latter necessary to describe the non-local observer-participant results on a physical derivative deterministic basis.

 

The present hypothesis comes down decidedly on the side of Bohr, but is contained entirely with the Minkowski metric of Einstein’s Special Relativity. An alternative then presents itself to string/M-theory in defining a relativistic medium for the physical interactions…the implications of which are altogether more compatible with the opinions of many of the foremost researchers in the field of quantum philosophy, such as Zeilinger who states, “Most physicists are very naive; most still believe in real waves or particles.” And with Wheeler now holding Einstein’s chair at Princeton, who has concluded the universe is more like “a giant thought” than anything else.

[swansont]

Note: recent discussion on science philosophy and the supposed failings of the standard model have been moved

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30673

[Anu-Ki Ptah]

I was contemplating Wormholes and interdimensional Travel

 

and the notion of Folding Time/Space via The Tesseract. I know

 

these subjects may be frowned upon by many but here it

 

goes..At this point without Mathematical Formulation.

I Don't even know if a similar theory already exists. here it goes.

I noticed that when we speak of Folding time/space and utilizing

 

wormholes we seem to be thinking of a forward momentum

 

taking place in most cases. and the idea that such movement

 

is necessary to traverse if you will. but I thought of something

 

that I have dubbed (For lack of a better terminology ) "Atomic

 

Reverberation" which is based on the idea of moving

 

backwards in time while moving forward in space. Let me try to

 

make sense out of this seemingly absurd notion. If we tried to

 

move from one Galaxy to another using given modern

 

technology we would have to travel for a ridiculous amount of

 

time and never see it in our own lifespan. So If we were to

 

"Bounce" say subject A using a waveform or frequency

 

compatible to Subject A's Atomic Compilation which has a

 

Universal "All in All" frequency based on the Combination of

 

frequencies within its entire make up, (Kinda like a symphony)

and pull it into a realignment with the given destinations

 

Frequencies (its own Universal Composition) yet maintaining

 

Subject A's Own Harmonic Structure.

Then we could relatively bounce a subject through Space to

 

great distances whith little or no consumption of time.

 

I don't know if I used proper terminology for this explanation

 

and without regard to my lack of eloquence please lend me your

 

feedback on this matter.

Possible or impossible? Probable or improbable?

[Ashish]

Its really happened with me that our current theories of physics, such as the Standard Model or relativity, are flawed and present some alternative of mine too.

As you wrote that "However, when coming up with a new theory it is important that it should be better than the old one. Therefore the first step of coming up with a new theory is a sufficient understanding of the old one. You have to make sure that your new theory does everything at least as well as the old theory, otherwise the old theory remains more attractive. This is very difficult mainly because our current theories are so spectacularly good in their predictions."

 

For this I want to tell you that the word "Particle and Wave", confused me so much that I started having a great studies of it (even though I'm a final year student of Engineering in Information Technology) so as to get what the previously scientists used to imagine to make the theories come upto right way i.e what idea had strucked them.

And now I'm steping in this by sufficient understanding of the old one. Whether there is wave or not and If I say that there is nothing like a wave in this whole universe, then I've to explain all the theories such as

1)Interference

2)Diffraction

3)Reflection

4)Refraction

5)Dispersion

6)Polaraization

in particles (with some new idea), as Newton introduced the concept of corpuscules.

And then comes the

1)Photoelectric effect

2)Compton effect..... and so on till now

 

we are assuming the idea of Einstien (photon) and DeBroglie's Equation.

 

Then this has to be followed to persuade scientists that the Standard Model is wrong, then you have to explain why this is a coincidence or show that your new theory predicts to at least this accuracy.

[elas]

Have finally got hold of a copy of 'The Enigmatic Electron'. Spin is explained as proof of radius. The reason for the difference between classical and QT radius is dealt with in a manner not so far fetched from the one I propose, the difference is in the terminology; and there appears, at first glance; to be much that I can make use of.

On the amusing side, the author quotes Machiavelli to show that he agrees with my view of the behavior of academics; rather than the more idealistic view expressed by swansont; that is not to deny how much better things would be if swansont's view prevailed. Now I can tackle revision with renewed confidence.

[swansont]

Have finally got hold of a copy of 'The Enigmatic Electron'. Spin is explained as proof of radius.

 

That doesn't jibe with what I was able to read on Google books. The book continually points out that the electron is a point, and you only get indications of size when it's interacting, and that these are clearly quantum effects.

[Norman Albers]

If electrons are point-like, how can this yield finite energy? If you integrate the energy contained in the electric field alone, from a far distance into the classical radius, you get half an MEV. The field cannot contain a higher and higher energy density going to smaller radii, it seems to me! This is why I built a model where a near-field of polarization response balances the excess with negative energy. This leads me to the vision of electrons as singular arrangements of electric dipoles.

[swansont]

If electrons are point-like, how can this yield finite energy? If you integrate the energy contained in the electric field alone, from a far distance into the classical radius, you get half an MEV. The field cannot contain a higher and higher energy density going to smaller radii, it seems to me! This is why I built a model where a near-field of polarization response balances the excess with negative energy. This leads me to the vision of electrons as singular arrangements of electric dipoles.

 

That's a classical calculation. That's the point of several discussions on the matter — classical descriptions of the electron fail. You have to use QED.

[Norman Albers]

On one hand, maybe it's classical, but on the other hand there is nothing classical about a fluctuation field of inhomogeneity.

[elas]

swansont

 

classical descriptions of the electron fail.

 

MacGregor states that neither the classical no quantum view on has been proven beyond doubt. At one point MacGregor also states that perhaps there is an underlying simplicity that allows both sides to be correct; this is the view that I put forward using vacuum, mass and atomic radii to show how.

I have also on several occasions pointed out that bubble chamber experements demonstrate that we observe the movement of point-like vacuum, we do not observe the movement of a volume (i.e. with radius) of matter (in a bubble chamber).

 

Norman Albers

 

MacGregor explains things in such a clear, concise manner that I can begin to understand the case you are making. In many ways I feel we are heading towards the same conclusion, I strongly recommend that you get a copy of this book if only to see the foundation of my (or your?) proposals put in a professional manner with all the references. Perhaps one of the most simplest outcomes of reading MacGregor, is that I need to replace the term 'Linear Force' with the term 'Linear Energy'.

[elas]

swansont

Norman Albers

 

That's a classical calculation. That's the point of several discussions on the matter — classical descriptions of the electron fail. You have to use QED.

 

 

I have a certain amount of tidying up to do, but that aside; I can now show:

 

1) That the electric charge radius is the true electron radius.

2) The classical electron radius is the maximum force radius.

3) The magnetic force radius is the point on the radius at which force and anti-force cross over (from greater to lesser and vice versa).

 

The above are related to the structural relationship between vacuum and matter. I expect the Compton measurements to be related to vacuum only, but have yet to complete the work on this.

 

Note that the only QT measurement is the Compton measurement, all the rest are classical physics. Mac Gregor‘s idea or belief, that classical and quantum views of the electron will eventually be proven to be compatible; is I believe, provable.

 

My explanation using atomic fields, to show the cause of the difference between the QT and classical views of particle structure (i.e. point-like and classical radius) will probably turn out to be a valid explanation.

 

I have added to this on:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29892&page=8

[zeig]

But going to the trouble to really understand a current scientific theory isn't as much fun as learning just a tiny bit and then coming up with my own crazy theory that appears to be better than the original because of my lack of understanding.

 

haha wow thts totally true

[seemysince]

here is a theory of mine,why in our world is matter stationary that moves, like air water and earth and even fire could be stood still, and we dont have anything like the space that happens when you move something< that is a good reason for a diverse matter area such as our world>

[Klaynos]

here is a theory of mine,why in our world is matter stationary that moves, like air water and earth and even fire could be stood still, and we dont have anything like the space that happens when you move something< that is a good reason for a diverse matter area such as our world>

 

Have you read the OP and do you conform the the criteria required for a theory?

 

I'll give you a clue to the answer, it begins with an n...

[pioneer]

This is more of an observation. At the smallest levels of matter and energy things obey quantum laws. But as you get larger into macro size quantum breaks down. For example, the pebbles on the shore of river are not quanta. There is certainty of position and their movement does not obey wave equations. These rocks are composed of quantum substructure, but as a composite they don't follow quantum laws.

 

This is where a theory comes in. Most gravity situations involve mass composites like two big rocks that don't follow quantum laws. So maybe there is a way to extrapolate that transition from quantum into not quantum, so GR is able to interface with quantum theory. There is a slight macro difference that pure quantum theory leaves out, where sub particle uncertainty becomes composite certainty. Where waves blend into fixed composites that follow particle principles.

[lucaspa]

This is more of an observation. At the smallest levels of matter and energy things obey quantum laws. But as you get larger into macro size quantum breaks down. For example, the pebbles on the shore of river are not quanta. There is certainty of position and their movement does not obey wave equations. These rocks are composed of quantum substructure, but as a composite they don't follow quantum laws.

 

I have read that they do. It's just that, at those sizes, the waves are so small as to be unnoticeable. For instance, I have read the the wave function of you and I is smaller than the diameter of an atom. Much too small to be noticed or measured.

[pioneer]

I have read that they do. It's just that, at those sizes, the waves are so small as to be unnoticeable. For instance, I have read the the wave function of you and I is smaller than the diameter of an atom. Much too small to be noticed or measured.

 

Maybe the wave-particle observation should be the pseudo-particle nature becomes more pronounced than the wave nature at larger size. But at smallest size the opposite is more true or more in proportion. A cannon ball is more like particle than a wave. In other words, one has to go through great trouble to determine the wave aspect. The particle is right over there.

 

The uncertainty is interesting, as we get larger composites, the uncertainty begins to approach zero. That could be due to the proportional shrinking of the composite wave nature.

[CPL.Luke]

what you guys seem to be talking about is the semi-classical limit.

 

Quantum mechanics simplifies to classical mechanics as the various parameters go to infinity, however classical mechanics only perfectly coincides with quantum in the limit that things go to infinity, at the macro-level classical mechanics becomes an excellent "approximation" for quantum mechanics, however quantum mechanics still holds the real answer at these levels.

 

unfortunatly the quantum processes that are in effect at this level are poorly understood and considerable work is being done on the behavior of quantum mechanics in larger systems.

 

The main motivation for this work is that large scale quantum systems exist like, like superconductors and understanding how quantum mechanics works at this scale may eventually lead to an understanding of how high temperature superconductors work.

[Klaynos]

Posts on "math-free analysis" have been moved to:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34859

[throng]

Thanks Severian

So the standard model can compute the life time (or should I say the half-life time ?) of the neutron! I asked because the only thing I saw on the standard model is little table with the "fundamental particle" and some Feynman diagram .

What would be a good start to go deeper than that ? What level of math is necesary ?

 

I completly agree and I am at that step.

 

He did these very entertaining lectures. Get a pen and paper and draw as it goes along, Its such a simple overveiw. probably have to pause it a few times to process it.

 

 

http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8