Tuesday, December 02, 2014

Broken Link to Main Paper

Broken Link to Main Paper Restored

I noticed that the main paper was missing in action.  I restored its link in the side panel.

You can find it here also.  There is a caveat. Since I wrote this version I realized that the Pioneer Anomaly deceleration is twice what one would expect from just the curvature of space within the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory.  This means that other factors are also decelerating the spacecraft.  Thermal Irradiation anisotropy was suggested to account for the rest of the delay.

This correction hasn't been loaded into this version of the paper yet.  It will be done soon.



Friday, November 21, 2014

Milk Way Monster Black Hole Ignores Snack

Milk Way Monster Black Hole Ignores Snack

To the disappointment of the many Black Holists, the Gas Cloud G2 survived passing close to the Lion's Jaws...:)

The Hypergeometrical Universe offers a much more nuanced view of Black Holes that current General Relativity or Quantum General Relativity does.

Black Holes are close related to the initial metric fluctuation that generated the Universe.  It doesn't have the antisymmetric (dipolar) nature of the Original Quantum Fluctuation but it can have anisotropy (Black Hole Tubes), dispersion (higher order metric deformation states will present no Gravitation nor long-range interaction for that matter).

Anisotropy can be understood when one considers what I would expect from a Black Hole with angular momentum (axial symmetry or Black Hole Tubes).  These are new Black Holes since angular momentum would be transferred to the Galaxy through Gyrogravitation (see my formula for Gyrogravitation) as time goes by.  New Black Holes would also be highly active (see White Orifice Posting).

The reason for G2 survival might be due to the age of our Sigma* Black Hole, size (thus collapsing into a higher level of metric deformation and thus emitting different frequency dilaton field).  A different frequency dilaton field is present on neutrinos and would also be present on an old, hyper massive Black Hole.

Of course, the model for mass accretion within the Hypergeometric Universe Theory has the following characteristics:

a) Mass is accreted. nuclei distances decrease until they reach the fundamental dilator de Broglie wavelength divided by SQRT(2).  At that distance, dilators sense no gravitational force.  Topology depends upon angular momentum.  Cylindrical topology for young Black Holes (with angular momentum), spherical topology for Black Holes without angular momentum.  Angular Momentum is transferred to the surroundings through Gyrogravitation.
b) If mass pass a threshold, dilator rearrange into a higher order deformation state at the core and lower order deformation state at the surface.  That is, one would expect that the Gravitational pull of a Black Hole wouldn't go to zero, but would stabilize at a given value (which might still be total mass dependent).  This is the Black Hole shell that stars and G2 Glass Cloud would perceive.
c)It is not questionable if Hawking radiation would occur.  The question is where (perhaps just outside the metric deformation excited level core and thus still inside the normal matter shell).  If that were the case, one wouldn't be able to see Hawkins radiation and the Black Hole Evaporation would take much longer than currently expected.
d) a more interesting issue is the cooling of Black Holes.  As Hawkins radiation takes place, the excited core would cool down.  Since it doesn't interact with the surroundings, cooling would be much faster that expected.

Remember the solution of my Illuminati Puzzle... "There is energy in cold"...:)



Wednesday, October 08, 2014

From Dust it Comes ... To Dust it Returns..:)

From Dust it Comes ... To Dust it Returns..:)

Happy (then) BICEP2 Scientists

Another fancy claim bites the Dust, Galactic Dust, I should say.

The experiment Bicep2 announced with great fanfare this Spring that they were able to see large anisotropy swirls remnants from the Big Bang.  I scratched my head to see if that made any sense in my theory.  It could.  Any theory that starts from a single point (or small volume) would contain correlated regions and thus a correlation distance.  That correlation could manifest itself in anisotropy swirls.

While struggling with the Pioneer Anomaly, I reached after a few trials, the conclusion that one couldn't ever see the Big Bang.  The initial Gamma Ray burst wavefront is (SQRT(2)-1)*c*AgeOfTheUniverse ahead of us at this time.

My initial analysis required us to be able to see that burst if we were to look far enough.  I was wrong.  Long gone are those good old Gamma Rays...:) Thankfully.

Now this report brings down another outrageous claim of flimsy Science.


People should take a clue from this and reevaluate our God Particle...:)  the Higgs Boson... as well as the concepts of Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

Not enough discussion, not enough dissension has been permitted on Cosmology and Particle Physics topics.  One understands the reason, after all, one has to spend tens of billions of dollars to do an experiment.

That said, now that everyone already got their Nobel Prizes, got their data...:)  It is about time to discuss alternatives.



Friday, August 01, 2014

A 3.5 Factor, Hyperluminous Neutrinos and Infinitely Fast Processes

A 3.5 Factor, Hyperluminous Neutrinos and Infinitely Fast Processes

First let's talk about a 3.5 factor in my theory.  When developing the theory, I as everybody else, took clues from reality.  A theory has to be self-consistent and consistent with reality.  I realized that deriving the theory just by looking at cross-sections of an light-speed expanding hypersphere wasn't in line with the standard way of thinking.  One normally thinks about a force, being communicated through space and distance... so the field will naturally be diluted by the area though which it is diffusing..:)

If I were to use that kind of reasoning in my theory, I would have a much harder time thinking about the physics... in addition, I noticed that deriving a physical theory in an noncompact 4D spatial manifold using cross-sections yielded the same laws as deriving a theory using fields in a 3D-manifold. Of course, this has implications on the meaning of a delocalized mode.  If one considers a photon being emitted by a molecule.  That photon at long distances, can be thought as being carried by a spherical wave. Of course, that wave collapses immediately at the time that photon is absorbed by another molecule.  What is the meaning of distributing it throughout space, just to collapse it instantaneously during absorption. One doesn't have to remind you, that this goes against Relativity.  It is a form of instantaneous communication in the same way as the process of spin correlation in correlated-at-origin photons.

These are hard questions about the Nature of Photons.  In my theory, photons are spatial modulations of the dilaton wave-generator (dilator). The same difficulties arises. So the idea that interaction has to have a representation as diffusive process on an area or volume is hardly clear. The derivation by cross-section (2-Dimensional) circumference might be closer to the actual physics than a diffusion of a field through an expanding area.

I decided to go against fields (Fields of Dreams - my prior posting) as static properties of space.  Instead I decided that space should not be subject to a static strain, but it should be flexible and be the medium for waves.

In a cross-section analysis, I made the 'field" (wave amplitude) to decay inversely proportional to the number of nodes.  The same reasoning using fields, would imply that the field would decay inversely to the square of the distance...:), that is, having the amplitude of a dilaton wave decaying inversely with the number of nodes together with the usage of the Quantum Lagrangian Principle (each dilator dilates in phase with the local dilaton field) yields the same laws as considering that there is a field and that that field decays inversely with the square of the distance (or area covered).

There is more than just a predilection and sense of aesthetics in play here.  You cannot create a theory of everything by introducing more things (more constructs - force, field, mass, etc).  It is just a Rube Goldberg Machine....:)

In deriving the equations, I considered how much should the field decay at each de Broglie step.  There were three identical cross-sections (3) and there was a linear dimension along the radial direction where the dilaton field would also propagate.  At the time, ridding a subway, shaking left and right, it made sense.  Now it makes less sense and might require the addition of an extra parameter (there is almost no parameters in my theory).
That parameter would relate 4D Mass to 3D Mass.  We always knew that to go from 3D to 4D required a strong analogical mind... :)  For 3D to 4D gravitational masses, my initial 1:2 relationship is fine.  When I move to 4D electromagnetic mass, extra parametrization might be required.  When I have time, I will develop this further.  This shouldn't be a problem to any physicist worth their salt....after all, whenever it was convenient, infinite became finite (renormalization) in our current physical theories..etc.

When I have time, I will revisit this subject.

Hyperluminous Neutrinos

In my theory, an electron neutrino (related to Neutron decay), maps to a two dimensional wave propagating in the 4D spatial manifold. The neutrino is responsible for rotating the dilaton within the 3D Hyperspherical Hypersurface (3D Universe).

Since Neutrino and Light (photons) are elastic propagating deformations of space in my theory, one would expect them to travel at different speeds - think dispersion..:).  Neutrinos are transversal waves and photons are longitudinal waves.  Under normal materials, transversal waves are faster, which would make Neutrinos Hyperluminous.

Faster than the speed of light neutrinos were "observed" in an experiment Opera, just to be denied a few months later.  The poor scientist Prof Antonio Ereditato  who dared to Challenge Einstein's Theory, had to resign. Of course, I've never considered that neutrinos and light traveled at the same speed and still believe neutrinos are faster, just because of their topology (transversal spatial deformation waves).

Of course, I don't have a place to resign, so I can say anything.. and that is a good thing. Backing me up, is another physical observation .  The early arrival of neutrinos when a Supernova exploded (Supernova 1987a,) someplace else.  Neill deGrasse Tyson, who has a place from which to resign, cautiously suggested that there was a way to explain why a photon (which has no mass) should be slowed more by a gravitational field than a neutrino which supposedly might have some mass...:)

I don't know how he does it... The mental contortion to avoid stating the obvious - that Neutrinos - whatever they are, might travel faster than the speed of light... after all they arrived earlier than the light from that Supernova...:)  The difference in speed is 0.0000003%, something Opera couldn't never detect.

That is the problem with idolatry... Einstein was good, very good... but if we keep him in a pedestal, we are not going anywhere.

Infinitely Fast Processes

What would be the reason for something to be infinitely fast.  I can give you one situation.  Let's say that space deformation is quantized, that is, the energy to deform space tunnels from mode to mode.  We know that tunneling is instantaneous....:) you are either here or there... not in between...

I draw circles showing the dilaton field expanding through space.  The energy impacted in that dilaton and  its polarization are quantized.  That is, if you change it in one place of the Universe, that would be the same as if the dilaton converted into another mode (for instance, a mode of perpendicular polarization to the initial one).  That can occur instantaneously, since despite the dilator field is spanning a large distance, the two perpendicularly polarization modes occupy the same volume in space.  That solves the problem of non-local interaction.  I believe, this works at particle level also, that is, if one can convert a dilaton field into a dilator, one can create teleportation.  There is a big if...  IF you want to know the answer, work harder at understanding the theory and how it applies to solving your energy problems, stellar travel...etc..

Ask questions while I still might know the answers...:)