The Meaning of Spin
Quantum Mechanics (always working in their Quantum Garages) always talk about it...:) It makes our view of the Universe even more awesome that we ever thought it could be possible...:)
After all, what is spinning?????????
In Quantum Mechanics there is no answer to that simple question. One has to feel stupid and think that the professor has some deeper understanding for not being up in arms with such a concept.
It is called an intrinsic degree of freedom. Positive and Negative signs are not translatable in terms of clockwise or anticlockwise as it would in any other rotation...:)
A good Quantum Mechanics student would never be satisfied with such Hocus Pocus... I wasn't.
To make things worse, each and every particle (or almost) discovered resulted in a new internal degree of freedom.
In the Hypergeometrical Universe theory, spin has to do with the sequence of the dilator:
As you can see, by changing the intermediate phases (Black and White) of the Fundamental Dilator coherence one can seemingly change the spinning direction. The lower panel shows a Proton-Electron and a Hydrogen Atom. A superposition of these two states is the same of having a proton transforming into an antiproton (phase) at each cycle. Of course, this is a very high frequency (Compton wavelenght of a Hydrogen atom/lightspeed). Electromagnetic waves are spatial modulations of the source of this high frequency dilaton field. The energy and spin associated with the spin conversion is carried away by an electromagnetic wave.
Creating internal degrees of freedom willy nilly was like in the good old times, when someone would discover another planet and place it in a celestial sphere...:) ... while refuting new topologies from outsiders....:)
Now-a-days we face the same situation. I proposed a complete (almost completely presented here) theory in which those constructs have a different meaning. There is no Universe Inflation, Quarks, Reciprocal Symmetry, Gauges...:)
As far as I am concerned, we are back to the Medieval Ages..>:)
Not to long ago, I tried to present two results from my theory. It was a new strategy. I realized that both my results on the Pioneer Anomaly and the new Gravitation and Electromagnetism Hypergeometrical Laws could stand by themselves with little need to refer to my main theory. Of course, the lightspeed hyperspherical topology and the fundamental dilator paradigm are needed to derive the new laws. That is small and self-evident (after I explain them) part of my work.
The Pioneer Anomaly needs even less. Just the topology is needed and it was presented briefly within the paper.
I submitted the new Gravitational Law paper to a Physics Journal and received this rejection:
"The author uses concepts from established theories without a clear justification for its usage. In fact, he uses what it is useful, without the being consistently rigorous. He introduces conclusions based upon a so-called theory which did not passed the evaluation of the specialists"Needless to say, that is another intellectually coward review, if one can call it a review. No specifics, nothing that one can rebut...:) Of course, I used concepts from established theories. It is not my intention to create something so detached from reality (e.g. String Theory) that it cannot be criticized. Had he provide examples, I could explain why I used those concepts.
I kept what could be kept from current Physics. For instance, I kept the concept of Spin and found a meaningful paradigm which would clearly be consistent with spin quantization, intrinsic angular momentum etc. My representation clearly provides the reason for quantization other than a postulate as it is in Quantum Mechanics.
In fact, my theory is the only that provides a reason for quantization through the introduction of the Fundamental Dilator paradigm and the resulting Stroboscopic Universe.
Another example are Quarks. Despite of the fact that I eliminated the silly Strong Force with its reciprocal symmetry requirement, I kept the numbering because it provides the means to create an Universe that arises from fluctuations of Zero.
Of course, just because people cannot measure structure in the Electron doesn't mean that it cannot be represented by a 4D displacement volume of the metric.
Dr. Assis likely skimmed through my paper and saw this plot...:) I imagine his horror when he saw the quarks of a proton being associated with a metric deformation of a 5D Spacetime. The proton states are different not by energy, volume or another funky quantum number but by spatial orientation. In my theory things are never standing still. The proton is an ever changing coherence which looks always the same because of a intermittent interaction process -creating a stroboscopic universe...:)
Both proton and electron have spatial degeneracy lifted by the speed of light. It takes time to move from one orientation to another. In addition the proton is represented by (2/3,2/3,-1/3) or (up, up, down)...:) That is downright heretic...:)
Modifying the meaning of a Quark into the length of a 4D ellipsoid of revolution...:) What can I say, I did not know that one could not do it...:)
Modifying Newton's Laws into Hypergeometrical Laws. That had to be done if one want to build a theory without the clutter of meaningless constructs like Mass, Charge, Hypercharge, epsilon, mu, etc...
In fact, that criticism would apply to Copernicus. He change the paradigm while keeping all the other constructs (planets). Of course, we build upon knowledge and you should never throw away knowledge that can be used...:) Current Quantum Mechanics is an example. It would be stupid to state that current quantum mechanics is not alright without providing a suitable substitute. In my theory, the Fundamental Dilator, the Quantum Lagrangian Principle and the Universe topology provides the means for Quantization and the derivation of Schrodinger equation.
The displacement volume paradigm has the attribute to allow for the creationg of an Universe where all particles are coherences which would go back to zero if time were reversed or if they were to meet their counterparties in volume, momentum, spin.
In my theory, I was complete enough to provide the counterparties for most if not all the hyperons.
With respect to being santified, sacramented by the specialists. They have access to this page and are always welcome to do so or to criticize the theory.
It takes guts to take a position in life. In Science things are not different.
The second paper on the Pioneer Anomaly, evaluated by the same Journal is even worse:
The article does not follow the standards for a theory presentation. The author, apparently, did not pass though the required education to be deemed a theoretical physicist.This paper is based upon a simple argument in which one evaluates a possible explanation of the perceived deceleration sensed on the Pioneer spacecrafts. As usual, I evaluate that observation using a proposed topology (lightspeed expanding hyperspherical Universe). From that, I derived the corresponding Hubble Law and a reasonable age of the Universe (15.82 Billion Years).
Of course, this doesn't prove that the Universe is 15.82 billion years old nor that the Universe is a lightspeed expanding hypersphere, but the paper stands on its own foot. There is not need to concluded anything else about my theory. I just presented an explanation which included a non-compact spatial coordinate and presented the conditions in which that non-compact spatial coordinate would be consistent with our observations (lightspeed expanding Hyperspherical Universe).
The editor (Antonio S. T. Pires) most likely felt the normal fear of presenting something from someone that doesn't seem to be from the Fraternity of Academicians.
I don't totally blame him for doing so. I was a reviewer in the past and know that the tallest the claims of a paper the highest the fear it instills on the reviewer. It would be horrible to be associated with a stupid paper- as they say: "stupid paper, stupid and/or lazy reviewer"...:)
In this case, I only blame him for his laziness and fear ...:) He is not alone there. Eventually I will talk about other journal submission experiences... By the way, invitations to review this paper were sent to the largest big wigs in the field: Stephen Hawking, Leonard Suskind. Please don't be offended if I missed your name. Just send me an email and I will invite you too..:)
If I were someone from academia and had written the corresponding metric and calculated everything I calculated, everything would be fine. I have little time to develop this theory and refuse to overformalize it without a good reason....The rejection was solely based upon myself not being one of them...:)
As you know, I am interested in getting a single scientist to understand my theory and to have the courage to say yes or no...:) that is, the person can or cannot find a reason why this idea shouldn't be part of the discussion...:)
I approached a ruthless scientist who made a sadistic career on correcting Myron Evans and his ECE Theory...:) I am saying this tong-in-cheek since I believe that every idea should be criticized or at least, I believe that criticism is a good thing.
Of course, I disagreed in the past with some basic physical assumptions in the ECE theory and tried to get a clarification but was dismissed as an impertinent fellow...:)
I approached this ruthless scientist in the same way I approached his equivalent at Universidade de Campinas (Andre Koch Torres de Assis). I've just asked for criticism...:) and obtained nothing...:) not a single word...:)
In fact, Dr. Torres-de Assis was kind enough to say that my work is very different from his - implying that it is difficult to evaluate my work using his background or mathematical dialect. I am still hopeful to receive some criticism from Professor Bruhn.
As you can see, I follow my own advice and seek criticism.
If I could find someone like me to ask me questions..:) I do my best, but I am sure I am missing some points... Every so often I polish the theory after improving my understanding of Nature.
Professor Bruhn is Ernest S. Gullible mentioned with high hopes in prior blogs...:)
Of course, my hopes are exactly for getting some of the big wigs to say yes or no on record to the question: Does this theory deserves to be part of the discussion?
I believe so and would love to hear from them. I cannot accept being dismissed just because supposedly I didn't write something along the lines someone else considers the appropriate manner without providing any guidance on how to improve the format. By the way, the submitted papers are available within this site and are part of the blog itself.
If someone were to tell me that he/she had written the theory of everything and I couldn't find an obvious reason why not, I would try to make it known to mankind or at least to the especialists...:-) even if it were written in a papyrus, lambskin or on the sands of a beach, not to mention the proverbial back of an envelope...:)