dr_strangelove Posted January 25, 2003 Posted January 25, 2003 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
JaKiri Posted January 25, 2003 Posted January 25, 2003 Realising of course that the unification talked about with unification theories is that of General and Quantum mechanics, which that site doesn't even touch apon. The author doesn't appear to have fully understood scientific method either, and I can't be bothered to check any of the mathematics.
fafalone Posted January 25, 2003 Posted January 25, 2003 Easiest way to assess the math... A unification theory without a single wave function, nabla operator, or partial derivative is no unification theory
fafalone Posted January 25, 2003 Posted January 25, 2003 Unlike some people here, I recognize when I don't know enough about something to take my level of understanding and skip over all that I don't know to arrive at a conclusion.
Giles Posted January 26, 2003 Posted January 26, 2003 I'm not convinced that's even long enough to contain all known physics, let alone unify it
JaKiri Posted January 26, 2003 Posted January 26, 2003 Originally posted by Adam come up with your own d@mn theories Says someone who just lifts ideas from websites.
dr_strangelove Posted January 27, 2003 Author Posted January 27, 2003 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.
Giles Posted January 27, 2003 Posted January 27, 2003 Originally posted by dr_strangelove Dirac, himself, had no idea why his matrices work. He found them simply by trial and error. True as far as it goes, BUT Dirac matrices have been shown to be mathematically equivalent to the operations of quantum mechanics for which there is a physical derivation. NB This is reporting; i cannot carry out the mathematics involved. .... Can you please show how those results for the clocks fall out of spec. rel. - I am not convinced I can carry out the mathematics reliably myself, and they don't sound right. You don't even appear to check how spec rel affects this. You say "this conclusion can only be reached if the clocks are preset to run at a rate that is inversely proportional to their energy.". Firstly, dilation relative to observers will vary and so the apparent rate of the clock will do so. Secondly, this is (in your example) the energy as measured by observer (or relative to a given reference frame), and would not be constant for all observers. (Energy conservation ofc remains intact within a given reference frame.) Consequently the clock as specified, and therefore the rationale for your assumption appears contradictory with the experimental data of special relativity. Once again it may be possible the mathematics fall out neatly in your favour but you need to demonstrate that.
dr_strangelove Posted January 27, 2003 Author Posted January 27, 2003 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.
fafalone Posted January 27, 2003 Posted January 27, 2003 I hear an aweful lot of talk about special relativity... isn't general relativity the followup and more broad-reaching?
dr_strangelove Posted January 27, 2003 Author Posted January 27, 2003 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. .
Giles Posted January 27, 2003 Posted January 27, 2003 In its original form, there were no solutions of GR which predicted a static universe. Einstein introduced the 'cosmological constant' because he thought the universe was static. When this was removed again GR predicted a non-static universe (its actual state depending on initial conditions). The incorrect doppler shift is not a prediction of GR but SR. http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/prl-pi/prl-pi.stm
dr_strangelove Posted January 27, 2003 Author Posted January 27, 2003 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.
fafalone Posted January 27, 2003 Posted January 27, 2003 No offense, but what are your qualitifcations to come up with a GUT, where can I find your research, and why do you only have a Masters and not a PhD?
Radical Edward Posted January 27, 2003 Posted January 27, 2003 Originally posted by dr_strangelove I stand firmly by my belief that GR is an overly complicated and mainly incorrect theory. It's not actually conceptually complicated at all, only the mathematical representation is. As regards complexity, it isn't even a patch on Quantum Mechanics.
JaKiri Posted January 27, 2003 Posted January 27, 2003 Originally posted by dr_strangelove I stand firmly by my belief that GR is an overly complicated and mainly incorrect theory. Despite the fact that it has been verified to be correct on every single test done on it?
dr_strangelove Posted January 27, 2003 Author Posted January 27, 2003 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.
JaKiri Posted January 27, 2003 Posted January 27, 2003 Originally posted by dr_strangelove Will all of that, if valid, provide the same result? Will it explain the orbital deviations of Mercury from Newtonian relationships?
dr_strangelove Posted January 28, 2003 Author Posted January 28, 2003 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.
JaKiri Posted January 28, 2003 Posted January 28, 2003 Originally posted by dr_strangelove Perhaps you would like to tackle the problem. I don't feel it necessary at present, as many people have for many years worked through both Relativities and have supported both.
dr_strangelove Posted February 15, 2003 Author Posted February 15, 2003 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.
quick silver Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 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 i too am working on a theory that has to do with unification. just to see if i can do it. i have an answer to the riddle that may work. but my work is a theory on how to either see if there is an answer or to simplify it into understandable terms. simplicity can sometimes the best route to go. but in a way it is not really unification but a simple way of looking at things.
ed84c Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 Try the theory attempting to do the same, I wrote a paper about it once; "Gravity Inertia Hypothesis"
ed84c Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 I meant to post the following in this thread, allthough it fits in quite nicely in the other one aswell; This is the one; http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0108/0108026.pdf It trys to unify QM and Gravity' date=' using the idea of the quantum vacuum.[/quote']
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now