Comment:
Hi MP, I am glad I´ve found your site and your thoughts about things. I have read some of your HU-paper and bits and pieces here and in your blog. I am impressed. Nr 1 reason I am writing is that I have also been thinking about a 4d expanding universe as a solution to understand/explain GR and "facts" like time, CMB and expansion. Well my ideas has been Macro/topographic and I have not been able to incorporate particles. When I realized that this idea has potential I´ve been looking around for a while on the net and in popular books and found nothing like this in the psysics community. And than I stumbelled over your blog when I tried to find information and thinking about the imagined higgs boson. I´m trying to understand your theory and the first question is: how exactly is your theory explaining gravity? Is the FS deformed by dilators like the Einsteinian curved space or is it that gravity is a part/consequence of the dilator interaction? Hope you understand what I mean.
Peter,Cheers/PS
It is a pleasure to meet a like-minded reader...:) The idea of a lightspeed expanding 3D hyperspherical shockwave universe is unique and revolutionary. There isn't anything in the literature for many reasons. First, the idea is daring and proposes lightspeed traveling which would have a knee-jerk reaction from anyone in academia, not to mention the sheer panic instilled in editors when faced with such proposal. A narrow and ignorant reading of Restrict Relativity would seem to contradict this idea. It just happens that every theory has a scope and the Restrict Relativity's scope is a 4D spacetime. Within a 4D spacetime, proper time and proper space adjust themselves by definition to yield an universally observable constant velocity of light.
I mentioned in my blog that this is the result of a format choice for the equations of motion. There are many choices made by mankind which contributed to this. I mentioned in Newton's Blunder that in introducing the concept of Force and mass to describe acceleration, he missed a great opportunity to create a purely geometrical theory of the Universe. I recast Newton's laws in such a way as to eliminate mass and force and created such a theory..:)
Motion is defined by the Quantum Lagrangian Principle, which is a simple physical principle that can be tested in any body of water and wave producing mechanical dilators. Had I the time and resources, I would do it myself, but this is an easy Gedanken Experiment and I leave the simple demonstration to the readers and future generations.
The Quantun Lagrangian Principle states that dilator (dilaton or metric wave generators) always move in such a way as never do any work...:) they are awfully lazy. To achieve this state of leisure, they always dilate in phase with the surrounding dilaton field. Of course, for such a thing to happen, there has got to be a fundamental dilaton music to be played. Otherwise a cacophony would ensue.
The Fundamental Dilator concept provides this basic chord. There is an very good analogy to the Universe and the ever ringing of a tune and small variations of it. This analogy is what I seek to emphasize in my book: The Flying Orchestra. The fundamental dilator represents the four fundamental particles (proton, electron, positron and antiproton). In a four-dimensional spatial manifold, sound (metric waves) has not only a displacement volume, but also a tilt or orientation with respect to our 3D Universe. When the tilt is zero (the dilator is flush with our Universe) there is interaction. At any other angle there is NO INTERACTION. This means that my Universe is stroboscopic or that there is a pseudo time-quantizaton. I mean pseudo, because time flows unhindered. The appearance of time quantization is due to interaction intermittence. This phenomenon results in our Quantum Mechanics. More precisely, pseudo time-quantization plus the fundamental dilator plus the Quantum Lagrangian Principle plus the Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Shockwave topology yields Quantum Mechanics.
The Fundamental Dilator is what has eluded your project, I suppose. One cannot create the theory of everything would reviewing our concept of particles.
The lettering was used to indicate the orientation of the metric deformation coherence with respect to the 3D lightspeed expanding hyperspherical shockwave Universe. Interaction happens only when the letters are horizontal.
Despite of having place the Balls sidewise, they are really appearing on the same place as we travel along the R direction (perpendicular to our 3D Universe) at the speed of light. Their change in nature is achieved by tunneling between different stationary states of local metric deformation, that is, space can be deformed in a quantized manner.
Being an electron or a proton or an antiproton or a positron only depends upon which phase is horizontal with respect to the 3D Universe. Of course, the difference between matter and antimatter is just a minus sign, that is, a proton is defined (at an specific Cosmological Time) as a large dilation of the local metric, and and antiproton is a large shrinkage of the local metric. Half cycle away, they would invert definition since being matter or antimatter is a relative event. The electron is a small (1/2000 times the proton amplitude) shrinkage of the local metric and a positron is a small dilation of the local metric. The states are represented by the diagram below.
Of course, I kept everything I could keep from the current view of the Universe. I don't have a psychological need of imprinting myself onto each and every bit of my theory. I believe what I am building has the best parts or ideas of my predecessors. It is always convenient to keep as much of the logical framework people are used to for didactics sake. I kept everything that made sense, that is. The state numbers are assigned to the three axial lengths of a 3D hyper-ellipsoid of revolution. Notice that the difference between states is just orientation. States (0,-1/3,-2/3) and (0,-2/3,-1/3) differ just by a 90 degrees rotation within our 3D space. Since this is a dynamic process, the degeneration in energy is irrelevant. The states degeneration is lifted by the fact that it takes time to rotate a deformation by 90 degrees.
3D rotations are at the heart of the transmutation notes required to transmutate one particle into another or to provide the scaffolding needed to create all hyperons. I will someday explain how to do it in my blog "Splitting Hairs and Neutrinos"..:)
I will not repeat the lengthy hyperons family description. You can find it within the pdf and the pages of this blog.
The Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Shockwave topology provides the support for all the observed phenomena in Astronomy. From Hubble expansion, double jet Black Holes, Gamma Ray Bursts, the Precession of the Mercury Perihelion, Gravitational Lensing, the Pioneer Anomaly, all these phenomena have been presented within this blog. NO NEED for Dark Matter, Dark Energy or Darth Vader..:)
Within the framework of this theory lies the basis for Nonlinear Hadronics which would make it possible to eliminate Mankind's energy needs and allow for us to travel outside our galactic neighborhood.
The energy needs are fulfilled by the Coherent Nuclear Fusion processes which I proposed and described in a letter to Steven Chu. Other applications of the theory can be explained if someone bother to ask..:)
This is a recapitulation of the theory to dispel the idea that this theory has potential..:) This theory is fully developed and explains everything...:)
Now let's answer your nice questions.
The first allusion I want to tackle is the mentioning of the Higgs bosons. In my theory, there is no need for Higgs Boson...In fact, if people reading about the Higgs Boson had a brain they would notice the lack of details on how one distinguishes one boson from the Higgs Boson. Bosons are particles with integer spin. There are several particles like that, although most have spin zero (integer but zero, e.g. delta zero, pion zero, gamma zero etc)... How is that the experiment will prove that a given particle is giving mass to another particle. The only way I can think about is to collide that particle with another and see if inertia just disappears or gets multiplied by a larger number... I've never heard any experimental detail that would indicate that the good people of the Large Hadron Collider is pursuing this avenue. I don't think it is a feasible experiment due to the short life of particles. Thus I have trouble believing that anything conclusive would ever come out of a head-on collisional experiment. Of course, my theory can be easily probed by a sidewise (collinear focusing) collision velocity dependence experiment.
In my theory there is no mass. Inertial mass is the footprint of the dilator onto the Fabric of Space. The Fabric of Space is used interchangeably with the Lightspeed Expanding 3D Shockwave Hyperspherical Universe for obvious reasons..:) If you see equations where mass, electron charge is part of it, you can be sure that those are the connections of my theory to current knowledge. I recover the laws of nature as currently understood to ground my theory into our current understanding.
The 4D mass is the displacement volume equivalent to the coherent addition of the displacement volumes of four contributions (the four phases of the fundamental dilator metric deformation coherence add coherently since they are in phase with the dilaton field - both travel at the speed of light and the dilator is at the holospatial frame of reference).
Thus there is a difference between inertial and gravitational mass..:) although they are proportional at the level of neutral dilator complexes. When dealing with simple dilators (electron and protons), there is a factor of two because of the destructive interference occurring in the neutral dilator complex (spin zero gravitational dilators)...:) Of course, this might sound mysterious but it is addressed clearly in another page of this blog. Here there is no need for hocus pocus or sleights of hand..:)
In summary, the concept of inertial mass is replaced by its in phase displacement metric footprint. The concept of gravitational mass is associated with the dilaton field a dilator complex (e.g. a hydrogen atom) yields.
I showed in the past that the total dilaton field generated by a hydrogen atom is approximately equal to the one of a single dilator. Since neutral particles and neutrons are basic combination of hydrogen atoms, the inertial mass is approximately equal to the gravitational mass.
You question about the origin of Gravitation. All forces are derived from the same interaction: dilator-dilaton field interaction guided by the Quantum Lagrangian Principle which has nothing quantum mechanical about it. The principle is called Quantum Lagrangian Principle because it originates Quantum Mechanics.
The derivation of our common knowledge Gravitational Law is derived within the pdf and has been reviewed within the blog.
I digressed about the paradigm of 4D spacetime deformation and the application of the Quantum Lagrangian Principle within the blog. There is more than one paradigm that will yield the same result. Remember that whatever Einstein proposed in a 4D spacetime has to be a skewed view of a phenomenon happening within a 5D spacetime that I proposed.
This means that both models have to be compatible. If you decide to talk about 4D spacetime then local metric deformation due to an aggregation of dilators (large mass black hole for instance) will be a fine model. If you want to think about what is really happening the topology is more complex...:) You do have a lightspeed traveling framework and observes only what crosses the Fabric of Space.
Ultimately gravitation and all forces all comes naturally from the simplest equation you will ever see. The Grand Unification Equation is shown in my pdf and has been presented before here.
The distinction between gravitational mass (neutral dilator complexes) and charged masses (charged particles, e.g. electrons, protons) appears in the distinct behavior of the two probes. The charged particles are allowed to change their k-vectors while the neutral matter only changes location at each de Broglie step of the expansion of the Universe.
The observed change in k-vector (acceleration) at each de Broglie step is 10^38 times smaller for neutral dilators complexes (gravitation) as it is for simple dilators (electrons, protons), thus the difference in strength between Gravitation and Electromagnetism.
Of course, Magnetism is dependent upon motion. Motion (velocity) is modeled within the spacetime cross-section of my Universe and it is sensitive to Doppler effect or Lorentzian Length contraction. The deformation of the dilator field of electrons within a conductor together with the non-deformation of the dilaton field of the nuclei (they don't move) yields an effective dipolar dilaton field emanating from any wire where a current passes through. This has been used to derived the fundamental law of Magnetism (Biot-Savart).
It suffices since the final objective of any theory is to describe motion of matter or charged particles at motion or repose with respect to each other.
The other forces (Strong and Weak or Electro-Weak) are explained away by replacing the Standard Model (elimination of Quarks) and by introducing the concept of Nonlinear Hadronics, thus explaining the structure of neutrons and other isotopes.
Let summarize, FS (Fabric of Space) is the locus that travels at the speed of light. In the RXYZ, framework (left panel), it is a perfect circle or hypersphere (if you don't consider an specific cross-section). Thus there isn't any mass induced curvature.
On the TauXYZ framework (right panel) the story is slightly more complex. In that framework there is an absolute time PHI and the proper time tau which is a projection of PHI into the proper time axis. Within Einstein theory, he only perceived the proper time, he could conceive a paradigm that embraced both proper and absolute time.
If you only think about proper time and don't understand the correct laws of dynamics (which rules both chemistry, mechanics,electromagnetism, gravitation, nuclear decaying reactions or nuclear chemistry), then you will have to consider that space is curved. This is equivalent to say that the projections or overlapping dilaton field onto the Fabric of Space is more closely spaced with the proximity of a larger mass (black hole).
Both paradigm yield the same result. That is, you can think about equally spaced dilaton topographic lines or circles drawn onto a curved space or you can think about increasingly closer circles drawn onto a flat surface. Both paradigms will yield the same dynamics. The first is good for Einstein, the second is mine..:)
Cheers, Peter
MP
PS - By the way, I was always attracted to Sweden and when I was a kid I considered moving there. I liked the freedom of being a scientist in a society that allows for you not to spend your lifetime and mind on making money for the retirement age...:) I though that my mind would be freer there than in any other place... :) not to mention the mythological Swedish bikini team (Brazilian Mythology)...:) an idea that inhabited my mind during my teenage years...:) and still does every so often..:)
Cheers.
8 comments:
Concerning the Riemann hypothesis, the non-trivial zeta evaluations discovered by Euler are all terms of the cotangent series, of which the first term 1/2 becomes Riemann's critical line which somehow gives the zeta evaluations zero evaluations. It is not just the line which is critical I personally am also highly critical of the whole process. comment by Peter L. Griffiths.
Further to my previous comment, I have come to the conclusion that Euler's product formula for primes forming the basis of the Riemann hypothesis is wrong. The summation of all numbers can be reconciled with the summation of all primes by systematically deducting the composites from the summation of all numbers, leaving the summation of all primes. The formula quoted by Riemann does not do this. comment by Peter L. Griffiths.
Further to my previous comment 1.44pm, Euler's product formula for primes can be corrected by deducting from the Harmonic series the composite fractions including 1 followed by 1/4 contained in the Harmonic series. comment by Peter L. Griffiths.
I have come to the conclusion that Euler created two brilliant formulae, the cotangent series generating the zeta evaluations where the power is a positive integer, and the prime product equation where the Harmonic series H is reduced by successive products of the prime fractions such as 1/2, 1/3, 1/5 etc to equal 1 which remains unchanged so that we have 1 =H.P(p-1)/p. Riemann makes an early reference to both these formulae but creates numerous incorrect relationships to make the whole of his 1859 paper highly unreliable. The best way to study primes is firstly to investigate composites, not mentioned by Riemann. comment by Peter L. Griffiths
Near the beginning of his 1859 paper, Riemann incorrectly assumes that the complex variable s = 1/2 +ti is a Zeta power which can be individually applied to all whole numbers designated as n. Riemann fails to recognise that an expression containing an imaginary number such as 1/2 + ti cannot be a power unless the base is e or the equivalent of e such as n^(1/logn), and also unless t being the coefficient of i is a specific angle. The best known example of this is Cotes's formula cosu + isinu = e^(iu) not mentioned by Riemann, where u is a specific angle, and e cannot be meaningfully replaced by other values even though n^(1/logn) equals e for all whole number values of n. Cotes's formula can be expressed in terms of Riemann's formula as e^(1/2) X e^(iu) = e^([1/2] +iu) which equals n^/(1/2logn + iu/logn). All this means that Riemann is badly wrong in applying as a power for all numbers s =1/2 + ti. It also means that practically all the arguments in his 1859 paper are fallacious. submitted by Peter L. Griffiths.
It may be possible to identify primes by comparing the Harmonic series 1 +(1/2) +(1/3) +(1/4) .... with the product of primes (1/2)(2/3)(4/5)(6/7)...or its reciprocal before infinity is reached to see if there is any identifiable relationship. submitted by Peter L. Griffiths.
I solve Riemann Hypothesis.
But this is From number theory.
Please see it.
http://vixra.org/abs/1403.0184
I will take a look, Tai
Thanks,
MP
Post a Comment