Oscillating Spacetime: The Foundation of the Universe.

[ritik bhardwaj]

This is a newly research from John A. Macken, Published in Journal of Modern Physics. A new insightful work which gives a very new wave perspective of the Universe. 

 

About the theory:

In this article, spacetime is modeled as a quantum mechanical sonic medium consisting of Planck length oscillations at Planck frequency. Planck length-time oscillations give spacetime its physical constants of c, G and ħ. Oscillating spacetime is proposed to be the single universal field that generates and unifies everything in the universe. The 17 fields of quantum field theory are modeled as lower frequency resonances of oscillating spacetime. A model of an electron is proposed to be a rotating soliton wave in this medium. An electron appears to have wave-particle duality even though it is fundamentally a quantized wave. This soliton wave can momentarily be smaller than a proton in a high energy collision or can have a relatively large volume of an atom’s orbital wave function. Finding an electron causes it to undergo a superluminal collapse to a smaller wave size. This gives an electron its particle-like properties when detected. The proposed wave-based electron model is tested and shown to have an electron’s approximate energy, de Broglie wave properties and undetectable volume. Most important, this electron model is shown to also generate an electron’s electrostatic and gravitational forces. The gravitational properties are derived from the nonlinearity of this medium. When an electron’s gravitational and electrostatic forces are modeled as distortions of soliton waves, the equations become very simple, and a clear connection emerges between these forces. For example, the gravitational force between two Planck masses equals the electrostatic force between two Planck charges. Both force magnitudes equal ħc/r2.

jmp2024158_27505279 (2) (1) (1).pdf

[joigus]

Sonic waves? Sound consists of longitudinal pressure waves, while matter waves are essentially complex, and gauge fields satisfy transversalities (perpendicular to the direction of propagation). Matter fields and gauge fields simply cannot be longitudinal waves in a vacuum. Never mind gravity. 

Electrostatics is a very restrictive regime. Electrodynamics is what you should aim for.

It's not the Planck scale of space and time that gives rise to h, G, and c. The implication is in the other direction.

[MigL]

Given that we can't even get close to probing Planck scales, this then becomes another beautiful mathematical model, which may, or may not make 'real' predictions.

i don't want to read the PDF; does this model make any predictions which can be compared to experimental observations ?

[Mordred]

The article is based on the Wheeler De-Witt wavefunction of the universe conjecture without using quantum geometrodynamics I will note.

Being more a classical examination.

[ritik bhardwaj]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Given that we can't even get close to probing Planck scales, this then becomes another beautiful mathematical model, which may, or may not make 'real' predictions.

i don't want to read the PDF; does this model make any predictions which can be compared to experimental observations ?

You said about observational experiment, Yes there are few prediction which are accepted by Reviewers theoretically. It's a beginning so I believe that this model can be experiment proven. 

 

However, You read description I recommend one time, just one time read the paper I believe you will get the complete model. 

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Sonic waves? Sound consists of longitudinal pressure waves, while matter waves are essentially complex, and gauge fields satisfy transversalities (perpendicular to the direction of propagation). Matter fields and gauge fields simply cannot be longitudinal waves in a vacuum. Never mind gravity. 

Electrostatics is a very restrictive regime. Electrodynamics is what you should aim for.

It's not the Planck scale of space and time that gives rise to h, G, and c. The implication is in the other direction.

Actually there are lot of things which are covered in entire paper so I recommend to read full paper one time. Just a request because I believe theoretically true. 

[swansont]

19 minutes ago, ritik bhardwaj said:

Yes there are few prediction which are accepted by Reviewers theoretically

What are they, and how do you know this?

Quote

However, You read description I recommend one time, just one time read the paper I believe you will get the complete model. 

Our rules require that material for discussion be posted. “read the paper” is not an acceptable response.

[joigus]

50 minutes ago, ritik bhardwaj said:

You said about observational experiment, Yes there are few prediction which are accepted by Reviewers theoretically. It's a beginning so I believe that this model can be experiment proven. 

 

So what does it predict?

Btw, Journal of Modern Physics appears to have been classified as predatory here,

https://predatoryjournals.org/news/f/list-of-all-scirp-predatory-publications

[Mordred]

Paper is far too lacking for its claims far too much in particle to particle interactions that cannot be accounted for.  It barely touches the surface at a QM level. We already have an accounting of the quantum harmonic oscillator between particle to particle interactions those factors are already included in the Feymann path integrals.

 Nor to mention the Hamilton as it doesn't have any field treatments it doesn't really substantiate its claims.

  Archemedes spiral wheel with regards to electron seriously lol good luck with that.  The other main issue being the Eather qualities to spacetime that would be needed for its oscillations.

 

Edited July 21 by Mordred

[ritik bhardwaj]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

What are they, and how do you know this?

Our rules require that material for discussion be posted. “read the paper” is not an acceptable response.

I was not supposed to say read the paper but I felt people commented only by reading description. 

I will short out your all queries and doubts soon.... 

[exchemist]

10 hours ago, joigus said:

So what does it predict?

Btw, Journal of Modern Physics appears to have been classified as predatory here,

https://predatoryjournals.org/news/f/list-of-all-scirp-predatory-publications

Thanks for the link. I've added it to my bookmarks, though SCIRP is notorious and has been on Beall's List for ages. 

[ritik bhardwaj]

12 hours ago, joigus said:

So what does it predict?

Btw, Journal of Modern Physics appears to have been classified as predatory here,

https://predatoryjournals.org/news/f/list-of-all-scirp-predatory-publications

The beginning of jounrals of modern physics was not good. People posted unrelated and less valuable Theseus and reviewers has approved that papers. But now this journal is improved alot and if we ignore the past. Now the journal is accepting only valuable paper with multiple checking stages from reviewers. 

 

I agree that the beginning was not on the mark but now it is improved a lot. Anyways I will come back with the prediction of this paper. I will try to explain in simple way.

[joigus]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Thanks for the link. I've added it to my bookmarks, though SCIRP is notorious and has been on Beall's List for ages. 

I did look for the journal directly on Beall's. Apparently the problem has become so bad that we have lists of lists now. I must confess I became aware of it relatively recently, although I had been suspecting of the existence of dodgy publications like these for quite some time.

47 minutes ago, ritik bhardwaj said:

The beginning of jounrals of modern physics was not good. People posted unrelated and less valuable Theseus and reviewers has approved that papers. But now this journal is improved alot and if we ignore the past. Now the journal is accepting only valuable paper with multiple checking stages from reviewers. 

 

Reviews of Modern Physics

Journal of Modern Physics...?

It's a little bit on the nose, isn't it? 

I suppose Abidas got off to a bad start too...

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, ritik bhardwaj said:

The beginning of jounrals of modern physics was not good. People posted unrelated and less valuable Theseus and reviewers has approved that papers. But now this journal is improved alot and if we ignore the past. Now the journal is accepting only valuable paper with multiple checking stages from reviewers. 

 

I agree that the beginning was not on the mark but now it is improved a lot. Anyways I will come back with the prediction of this paper. I will try to explain in simple way.

I quote from the Wiki article on SCIRP: 

"In 2021 Cabells' Predatory Reports described SCIRP as a "well-known predatory publisher".^[2] In the Norwegian Scientific Index the publisher and all of its journals have a rating of 0 (non-academic).^[18] An academic study published in 2022 stated that SCIRP was "widely known to host 'fake journals'".^[3]"

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

^{It does not sound from this as if SCIRP has improved at all in recent years. It has an office in California but is a Chinese operation, apparently exploited by Chinese researchers trying to get their publication count up.} 

Furthermore the author, John A Macken, seems to be some kind of retired inventor of optical devices, apparently without much background in the relevant cosmological physics: http://onlyspacetime.com/about.html. He also has a YouTube video out, posted in April this year. And he's also published his paper on Academia.edu, a notorious host for cranks of all shapes and size - people like Gareth Meredith, banned from this forum many times,  publish there: https://independent.academia.edu/GarethMeredith

None of this is how serious scientists go about their business. So it does rather look as  if it is likely to be some sort of homespun crankery.  

 

[cue the Galileo Gambit?]😉

Edited July 22 by exchemist

[Mordred]

I've read the paper itself and can attest it's very poorly written with very little usefulness. You can readily tell the author doesn't understand QFT and barely touches on QM. 

Regardless of peer review or not the paper itself has little to offer that hasn't been examined and tested already.

Let's take for example Archimedes spiral vs electron spin. The spin of an electron is a complex number that requires 720 degree rotations to return to its original state. That does not work for the Archimedes spiral with its 360 degree rotation not to mention the detail that particles are not little bullets but under QFT wave excitations.

Particle spin is intrinsic it does not have a classical counterpart. A wave also has transverse and longitudinal components not described by any of its mathematics. If anything its equations are rudimentary (easiest to use) of QM.

The 17 fields mentioned is incorrect. Any number of fields are includes in any SM model those fields are not restricted to physical (measurable) fields but often are strictly mathematical. There is no exact number of fields of the SM model.

The main problem is the acoustic oscillations it describes requires a  medium   in essence an Eather which we have incredibly high confidence due to Michelson and Morley type experiments of not existing. 

 

Edited July 22 by Mordred

[ritik bhardwaj]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

I did look for the journal directly on Beall's. Apparently the problem has become so bad that we have lists of lists now. I must confess I became aware of it relatively recently, although I had been suspecting of the existence of dodgy publications like these for quite some time.

Reviews of Modern Physics

Journal of Modern Physics...?

It's a little bit on the nose, isn't it? 

I suppose Abidas got off to a bad start too...

I mean reviewers of "Jounral of modern physics" 🥺

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

I did look for the journal directly on Beall's. Apparently the problem has become so bad that we have lists of lists now. I must confess I became aware of it relatively recently, although I had been suspecting of the existence of dodgy publications like these for quite some time.

Reviews of Modern Physics

Journal of Modern Physics...?

It's a little bit on the nose, isn't it? 

I suppose Abidas got off to a bad start too...

heh heh.👍