E PUR SI MUOVE...:)

E PUR SI MUOVE...:)







I wounder what would have happen to Galileo Galilei paper "Motion of Earth Around The Sun". Would it receive the same typical reply..>:)

"This is too speculative..."

This is the symptomatic of the replies I received from the Editor of Physical Review C and from moderated scientific lists. Somehow this first stage "Peer Review" pays very little attention to the arguments presented in my work, demonstrating the erosion of Editors/Moderators attention span...:)

With respect to the word speculative, a full theory (Quantum Chromodynamics), particle accelerators and inumerous scientific careers were created based on a theory that is based on the existence of Quarks. Needless to say, there are no experimental proof of their existence but it seems that there is a tremendous resistence for anything that might challenge that view.

Are Black Holes speculative? In fact, they are. They are being contested observationally even as we speak. There have been an observation that would indicate that when matter aggreagates in what would expect to generate a Black Hole, you end up with a hot plasma.

Don't even get me started on Tachyons, Creating New Universes from Higgs Bosons etc... This field is littered with speculation!

Please, feel free read the reply I received to my attempt to post a note about the theory in the sci.physics.research List and my reply to it, below... :)
==========================================================
==========================================================
==========================================================

On 8/30/06, Igor Khavkine wrote:
Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is inappropriate for the newsgroup because it is overly speculative.

For more information, see the sci.physics.research charter at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html

Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group and was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you want to post it to any unmoderated newsgroup, you must post it again, avoiding any moderated newsgroups.

Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be inactive. If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you email a moderator directly, it might arrive while he is inactive, causing an unnecessary delay.

Sincerely,

Igor Khavkine,
sci.physics.research co-moderator
==========================================================
==========================================================
==========================================================
Below is my initial posting

On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 11:52:21PM +0000, ny2292000 wrote:

The Hypergeometrical Universe Theory might seem like a non-serious theory since it proposes a non-orthodox solution to the paradoxes of Cosmology (non-constantness of the Hubble constant, the homogeneity of the Cosmic Microwave Background etc)... but Nature is oftentimes non-orthodox...:)

My theory proposes the the Universe rides and is the 4-Dimensional Hyperspherical Shock-Wave resulting from the decay of the initial Super-Symmetrical 4-Dimensional Spatial Deformation Event. Super-Symmetrical is mean here in the sense that the physical dimensions of this deformational state were above the supersymmetry conditions. The supersymmetry conditions in my theory refers to the maximum dimension where spin-zero and non-zero spin particles behave equally to the intervening spacetime waves. Matter is modeled as coherences between states in a 4-Dimensional Rotating Double Potential Well. The coherence time is matched to the lifetime of a particle while the spin is matches to the actual tumbling of that particle as it travels outwards in the proposed four-dimensional hyperspherical shock-wave expansion.

There is no need for Dark Energy to explain the expansion state of the Universe. It is just an immediate result of the geometry.

With the addition of the Radial fourth-dimension, it is easy to realize that motion is always at the speed of light and that the motion we are so concerned (along the 3-D manifold) is just a change of direction of the primary trajectory. This explains clearly why the speed of light is the fastest speed in the 3-D Universe. It would correspond to the particle to ride a perpendicular wave resulting in an interference pattern traveling at 45 degrees.

From the spacetime waves generated from the coherences (particles or dilators), I was able to replicate Gravitation and Electromagnetism through the creation of a new Physics, that is, a physics that is based on a new Lagrangian Principle. This principle states that the dilators travel always in phase with the surrounding spacetime waveforms. This simple principle is easy to use. Just calculate the total waveform in the particle position and find its nearest next positive interference.

Gravitation and Electromagnetism differs not by the Nature of the force but by the Nature of the Force Response. Gravitation affects zero spin particles (e.g. Hydrogen atom) while electromagnetism affects non-zero spin particles (e.g. Proton and Electron).

The difference is that zero spin particle do not spin (tumble) as they travel outwards in the hyperspherical expansion. This means that they couple to hypersuperficial waves (3-D hypersurface) and that their k-vector only changes direction at the level as the k-vector of the Hypersurface changes from position to position. Remember that this is a 15 Billion Light Years "Hypersphere", so a change in position will ellicit only a very small change in the direction of propagation, thus the resulting acceleration would be very small, thus the small strength of Gravitation.

Non-Zero Spin particle spin (tumble) and that couples allows them to couple to hypervolumetric wave modes. This also means that from expansion step to expansion step, they change their k-vector freely and thus the change is much larger than the change in the previously described situation. That is why for the same field, there are different results.

This is a real unification.

The part associated with Gravitation is described at Gravitation 101 in my blog.
Full details on the derivation are presented in the papers on the site.

Have fun and feel free to ask questions...:)


http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com/2006/07/gravitation-101_115361797777165070.html
==========================================================
==========================================================
==========================================================
Here is my reply to the Dr. Khavkine's review.

What is overly speculative about this posting, Dr. Khavkine?

The papers contained in the site http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com/) show all the calculations associated with the proposed Grand Unification.

The idea of traveling at the speed of light perpendicular to the 3-D space cannot be disproved due to the impossibility of detection of inertial motion. The proposed thin thickness of this shock wave universe along the radial coordinate does not allow allow detection any more than the uncertainty principle allows you to see the past...

The theory is Relativistic since it keeps the Lorentz transform (rotation by an imaginary angle arctanh(v/c)) and quantum mechanics in the Bohr sense.

In addition, the Grand Unification paper recovers Newtons'Gravitation Law, Gauss Electrostatic Law and Biot-Savart Law, thus Grand Unifying Electromagnetism and Gravitation.

The hyperspherical expanding Universe allows for a different interpretation of the E=mc^2 energy as kinetic, thus excluding any other potential interpretation for it (Gluonic Potential).

Particles are modeled in analogy to electromagnetic waves as being created by coherences between states. As you know energy is only transfered by a coherence between two electronic states when the coherence dephases. The same is proposed to be through with respect to the generation of spacetime waves. Only when the Coherence between two 4-D space deformation states is dephased one has a transition (particle decay).

The proposed traveling at the speed of light paradigm should be obvious once presented. If one is going to follow a Pythagorean approach to describing Nature, all the elements of Nature should be described as deformation of space, coherences between deformations, and spacetime waves. Since these deformations have no spatial constraints, they should travel at the natural speed of propagation, which in this case is the speed of light.

This explains in a simple manner why the speed of light is the liminting speed along the 3-D Universe.

I will stop here since a full defense of all points of my theory would be very long.

I would appreciate if you were to provide me with a substantive reason for the preclusion of my work. I am extremely interested in a real and substantive review of it and not a simple off the bat dismissal.

The kind of of the disregard for new and well substantiated ideas has no place in Science. My theory has a strong revisionist nature and is supposed to be controversial, but it is not supposed to be censured just for being controversial.

We are all scientists who love Science and new ideas and new ideas should be given a fair chance.

Please feel free to ask me any questions.

Marco Pereira

Need your Help

Just a few more Blogs to Go







Although it is always a pleasure to help you see the Universe through a new lens, the original goal of this blog was to create an interface with the Cognoscenti of this area.

Somehow, my outlandish theory did not create any of the heated debate I hoped for.

As you know by now, this theory Drops Strong and Weak forces Like it is Hot :). This would not sit well with anyone who works on anything related to the standard current scientific view.

The theory goes deeper. In creating a new Lagrangian Principle, the one that states that dilators are always in phase with surrounding spacetime waveforms (or should I say wavefields), I revised the basis for Dynamics, Gravitation and Electromagnetism. The revision is subtle, but extremely relevant.

Obtaining a metric of this space is trivial... It correspond to three rotations:

1) The first correspond to a rotation by
Cosmological Angle Theta around the direction perpendiculat to R and Cosmological Time.

2) The second correspends to a rotation of artan(v/c) around the direction perpendicular R and X.

3) The last corresponds to the Lorentz Transformation or a rotation of a complex angle artanh(v/c). This makes this theory relativistic and the observed time relative. The Cosmological Time is absolute and cannot be observed. This is a bold and fundamental review of the debate on Time. Later, I will digress on the meaning of time, if I have time...:)

4) The last transformation is the Hyperspherical Expansion which is just a R=c*CosmologicalTime.

Since I also created a new Lagrangian Principle, which has Quantum Mechanics built-in, one cannot derive Geodesics in a simple-minded way. The position of each dilator (particle) depends upon the position of every other particle at each de Broglie expansion of the Shock-Wave Universe.

One of the greatest ideas within this theory was the change in paradigm (there so many) that changes the idea that there are many "forces" from the idea that there is one single force and more than one response to that "force". Force is qualified since in this hypergeometrical theory there is no need for the concept of force.

This theory questioned the lack of phase information on fields and use that as a supporting evidence for the proposed Lagrangian Principle.

The 4-Dimensional Shock-Wave Universe Paradigm shift is the culprit in the elimination of the Strong and Weak forces. It also recasted E=mc^2 as being kinetic in nature.

Energy equation E=c*SQRT((m0*c)^2+p^2) was recasted to unveil the simple Pytagorean 4-Dimensional Linear Momentum Conservation Equation (m*c)^2=(m0*c)^2+p^2 hidden within it.

All these changes and innovation makes this theory impossible to publish. Sheepish editors (e.g. the one from Physical Review D) had bluntly said that this theory lacks something (without voicing any specific point).

I thought that by engaging the scientific community, I would be able to clarify the basic ideas and show that this theory is worthy to be recorded and discussed by the Intelligentsia....:)

Well, the lack of comments, contacts or discussion makes me believe otherwise.

I will wrap up a few points and leave this Science for "Scientists"...:) After all, they are the ones who are creating Whole Universes using something called Higgs Boson, Gluon Fields, etc.....:) Who am I to burst their bubble...:)

If you are a scientist who enjoyed reading my Blog, please feel free to contact me. I would like to have the theory published in the E-Print Archives somewhere before I stop thinking about this problem. Even for that, I need an endorser.

Thanks.

If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind.
- John Stuart Mill

Dark Matter ....Schmatter...:)

Dark Matter....
Schmatter...:)




When I first started struggling with the concept of matter, I realized that matter would have to have spin ZERO.....

I realized that "Matter" as we know it, was made of non-zero spin particles (electrons, protons, neutrons) ... They would gang together to make something that effectivelly had zero spin (Hund's Rule)...

I knew from the symmetry conditions on the intial Cosmogenesys event (see the Cosmogenesys Paper), that there should had been an initial zero spin deformation state which decayed into all these spinning particles (protons, electrons, neutrons are fermions -spin 1/2 particles...)...

I promptly realized that fermions of opposing spins sticking together close enough would mimic a zero spin particle. Since neutral matter has zero spin, they would behave like my archetypical zero spin one a.m.u. neutron. I used this archetypical particle to derive Newton's' Gravitational Law using a derivation which wasn't particle mass dependent.

Dark Matter was recently uncovered by the observation of a Galaxy cluster colliding with another Galaxy cluster. Dark Matter is seemed travelling ahead of standard matter and producing gravitational lensing where there seems to be no matter at all.. The fact that this matter travelled ahead of the standard matter indicates that it propagated through standard matter.

This propagating through is consistent with pure zero spin particles, as opposed to composite particles like neutrons which are in fact dimeric particles. This dimeric nature is unveiled when a neutron collide with another composite particle (e.g. a U235 nucleus). The collision makes the internal components of the neutron to interact with internal components of the other composite particle resulting in the fission of U235. A neutral dimer is only neutral if one doesn't probe it close enough to sense its internal charges.

A pure ZERO spin particle would interact only Gravitationally with standard matter. Standard matter would interact with it Gravitationally. Free charged matter (Plasma) would attract it in one de Broglie cycle and repel it in the next.

From this last statement, it might become clear that electrons, protons sense no Gravitation.

From the last statement one should ask: How come the Sun keeps itself glued together if not due to Gravity?

Gravity keeps the neutral Sun together, that is, for each positive charge, there should be a negative charge. As you know Electrostatic repulsion is 10^36 times stronger than Gravitational pull. One Kilogram of free, extra electrons in the Sun would neutralize the Gravitational pull of 10^36 Kg....:)

If electrons and nuclei were separated (distant) in Sun's plasma, then their electrostatic attraction would be the glue that would keep the Sun together. Not Gravitation. Of course, Gravitation is the seed for the creation of a Gaseous Giant which eventually ignited.

Of course, the Sun's plasma is such that electrons and nuclei are on average close enough to effectively form a neutral particle, that neutral particle (neutral plasma) will interact with other neutral particles through Gravity.

Have you ever asked how come a proton and a electron would attract each other with a force that is 10^36 times larger than the subsequent force with which that pair (Hydrogen atom) would attract another pair. In fact, riding much higher than Gravitation would be the Forces derived from the interaction of their dipoles, polarizability etc...

In this theory, there is no Gravitational force between charged particles and in stating so, this theory also breaks the relationship between Inertial and Gravitational Mass. What is the weight of a Kilogram of Electrons? Zero... Its inertial mass will be exactly one Kilogram...:)

Particles only sense one "Force" which is the waveform 4-D deformational field. Their response to this field defines the type of force (Electromagnetism or Gravitation). Their response depends upon their state of spin (spin 1/2, 3/2...) will define a charge and and electromagnetic response. Spin ZERO will respond in such way that can only be considered due to Gravitation.

Dark Matter should be composed of Pure Zero Spin Particles and they will only interact with other zero spin particles through Gravitation and not interact with charge particles at all.

Of course, the search for ZERO spin particles shouldn't start at things that throw spinning particles one against the other (supercolliders, hadronic accelerators)...

In fact, after I slept a little I realized that one might also be able to find them in spin polarized collisions of very specific particles... On the other hand, since you cannot detect or collect the created particles, they will just sink to the center of the Earth...:) before decaying back into baryonic matter..

Why is the Speed of Light the Speed Limit?

Why is the Speed of Light the Speed Limit?







I asked myself this question many times. Einstein simply hypothesized that the speed of light is the same for all inertial reference frames. This hypothesis results in the speed of light being the speed limit in our 3-D Universe (4-D spacetime). This is not an explanation on the why is the speed of light the speed bump of our Universe, it just an observation of how things are.

It is certainly not a simple and clear explanation...:)

Things are about to change...:)

Look at the ubiquitous picture above...:)

The circle above is a shock wave where any direction in our Universe can be mapped to the perimeter X. The shock wave Universe is traveling at the obligatory speed of light along the direction R, which is a Radial direction perpendicular to our X direction and thus to our 3-D Universe.

The first thing to realize is that the speed of light is not the highest velocity one can travel, it is the ONLY velocity one can travel.

Traveling at the speed of light along our 3-D Universe is equivalent to riding the interference of two spacetime waves: One that is our 3-D Shock Wave Universe and another perpendicular to the Radial direction.

The resulting interference would land our traveler on a 45 degrees trajectory with respect to the Radial direction and traveling at the speed of light...:)

Simple and Clear...

Fields of Dreams...

Fields of Dreams...:)








I still remember the feeling of extreme perplexity when I was first introduced to the concept of Field.

It was either the concept of Gravitational or Electrostatic Field, and it happened sometime in my early childhood.

The concept of Field goes one step beyond the concept of Force at Distance.

A field is supposed to be a property of the space where a charge or a mass will sense a force and it is given by:

E =e/(4*pi*epsilon*r^2) for an Electric field

E =GM/r^2 for a Gravitational Field

It was mysterious for many reasons but I can tell you two. The first one is that somehow a charge or mass would modify space itself...:)

Einstein later linked Gravitation with modulations of the metric of a Riemannian spacetime continuum. The obvious inference that nobody draws for some obscure reason is that being the Electric Field 10^36 times greater than the Gravitational Field, one would expect that a single charge would produce a Black Hole.. :) and of course, light would bend around any capacitor... Of course, this is not the case. If you read the paper I, the HyperGeometrical Universe GUT, you know my solution to this problem.

The second amazing and very subtle property of fields is Extensivity, that is, fields are proportional to the number of particles (charges or mass) in a given region of space. You know, if you pick two one-pound bags of Coffee and put them together they weight two pounds.

Why is Extensivity such a mysterious property?

The reason is obvious. A geometrical theory of the Universe can only be made of metric oscillations (dilatons) and metric oscillators (dilators).

An important observation is that dilatons can carry angular momentum, that is, one can have a 4-D wave that will impact you with a 4-D torque. Just a reminder, spin has been associated in this theory with rotations perpendicular to R (4-Dimensional radial expansion direction) and one of the 3 spatial dimensions.

If Gravitation is an extensive property of matter, it means that all the dilators in a body are in phase. Had Newton or Gauss or anyone else tried to create a truly geometrical theory of the Universe, they would have to have reached the same conclusion I reached: There is a need for a Cosmological Coherence among Dilators and for a Coherence Lagrangian Principle governing Dilator Dynamics.

Why nobody asked "How come the things that generate the field are in phase? "

Newton, Gauss, Einstein and many others are the luminaries that helped Mankind to find their path to this point. Reverence, Respect, Admiration are appropriate emotions when considering their work. On the other hand, one has to question assumptions to evolve knowledge. I am doing my part in the questioning and do it with the highest admiration to my predecessors and stemmed colleagues.

Hyperspherical Universe????

Is the Universe Hyperspherical?






Of course not!!!!

A Hypersphere is described by the equation below:
x^2+y^2+z^2+w^2 +t^2=R^2

The cross-section above cannot be obtained from this equation and that means that I don't really know what is the name (if it has a name) of the 5-Dimensional Object I consider the Universe to be....

Of course, one can write the Universe parametric equations as:

Fi * C=R; (notice that I made Fi as a Cosmological Time, to make things simple)...:)

X=R* ThetaX; ThetaX is the Cosmological Angle for X.

{x,Tau} and {x', Tau'} are related through Lorentz Transforms if you consider Tau as proper time.

{x,Tau} and {x', Tau'} are related through a simple Rotation Matrix you consider Tau as a direction in the Four-Dimensional Space. This might seem confusing, but that is how I thought about the problem...

One cannot not write a theory just because an Object has no Name...

I named it Hyperspherical... I am sure someone will eventually give it the appropriate name...

In fact, now that I thought a little more about the subject, the topology might be a HyperCilindrical...:) HyperToroidal...:) ... or something lame as HyperCircular...:)

I don't know... Should I call the expansion a Lightspeed Expanding HyperToroidal or Hypercircular Universe..

If that is the case, let me know your preferences, and I will recast it as a HyperToroidal Object...:)

That is why I sought a better name for the theory which would hide this small detail.... The topology of my Universe has no name...:)

Now the Cat is Out of The Bag and I don't mean the Schrodinger Cat...:)

The Solution to the Olbers' Paradox

Olber's Paradox
and the
Hypergeometrical Universe

From Wikipedia ...

Olbers' paradox, described by the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers in 1823 (and then reformulated in 1826) and earlier by Johannes Kepler in 1610 and
Halley and Cheseaux in the 18th century, is the paradoxical observation that the night sky is dark, when in a static infinite universe the night sky ought to be bright. It is one of the pieces of evidence for a non-static Universe such as the current Big Bang model. This paradox is sometimes also known as the "dark night sky paradox".

The Olber's paradox cannot be formulated within the Framework of the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory because, the proposed Universe topology is not infinite, presents tremendous amount of Doppler shifting and even though it is circular, one cannot see anything beyond one Cosmological Radian..

The Meaning of Material Existence

The Meaning of Material Existence







I believe that the simplest picture for matter is one of a four-dimensional “rotating double well”… Again, I am driven by physical considerations…

The Nitrogen atom in the Maser have existence in one side of the hydrogen plane and disappears from existence in that side of the hydrogen plane with an oscillating frequency equal to the difference in energy between these two states divided by h (Planck constant). This is a coherence, that is, the real state is a linear combination of two states of different energies (frequencies). The difference in energy is what creates the beating.















Figure 1. This figure shows a double potential well representing the energy levels of an out-of-plane vibration of Nitrogen in Ammonia. The space dimension is the distance from the Hydrogen Plane. This Figure was borrowed from the internet and its availability is greatly acknowledged and thanked for.

In the case of Ammonia, the finite potential barrier in the middle allows for tunneling and that in itself results in a splitting of equal energy levels located on both potential wells. The difference in energy between these new hybrid levels will define the frequency of beating. In the case of Ammonia, the potential wells are symmetric and the beating frequency is in the microwave region. The probability of the Nitrogen being found in one side of the Hydrogen plane is equal to the probability of the Nitrogen to be found in the other side of the plane.

In the case of an “Existing Particle” – material existence of a particle will be explored later in this work – it can be thought as a coherence between a massive and a massless states of the multidimensional space. The massless state lies outside the 3-D space along the radial direction. Their nature is of an eigenstate of spatial deformation (4-D space) potential rotating double well.

The mass of different particles /state of space deformation is defined by the different probabilities of being found in the massive side of the potential well. That explains the large variety of particle masses.

ParticleMass is a 3-D footprint (in the 3-D Universe we know) while they walk and tumble along the radial direction.

This in a nutshell is the reason why different particles have different rest masses.

You have to remember that in the theory particles always rotate (tumble) around the direction perpendicular to the plane XR (YR, ZR)..Those tumblings correspond to the Pauli spin (sigmax, sigmay, sigmaz)…Other quantum numbers can be obtained using similar reasoning…

The meaning of Material Existence implies that as the molecule tumbles it should set foot on the 3-D space at multiples of the de Broglie wavelength… At this time, I am not explaining some other details of the meaning of Mass… It is an elaborate argument…I will explain later..

Basically, to exist is to set foot on the Hyperspherical Universe Shock Wave every so often… If the phase is not correct, things don’t exist…

To exist is to be phase-matched with the Hyperspherical Shock-Wave Universe.
That is also the basic condition for Nuclear Chemistry.

The potential well is not symmetric (the radial direction and the 3-D shell are not symmetric)… thus the occupation number on each side of the well are not equal….That is the reason for the different masses associated with different particles… just an occupation number on a “rotating four-dimensional asymmetric “double” well” … I say “double” because one of the sides is triply degenerated (3-D side or Universe side)…

A simple problem…

PS- The maximum potential mass of a particle is proportional to the absolute value of its charge...:) Hadrons have three dimensional footprints in the 3-D Universe we know.. Mesons have two dimensional footprints...

From that you can imagine that the maximum mass of an electron is equal to the maximum mass of a proton and that is pretty close to the mass of a neutron...:)

I will introduce the HyperGeometrical Universe Standard Model next. I skipped the derivation of the Biot-Savart Law because it is convoluted to explain in a blog...but it is in the papers

I am not covering the Cosmogenesis because it is too simple... albeit conceptually straining..:) I might explain if there is interest...