[Aireal]

I need some good critique of my theory. It is basic physics and does not delve too deep, but I want to make sure I have the basics right before I continue. Here is an abstract, followed by a link where you may view it. Thank you.


Abstract.

S.W.A.P. The General Theory provides a framework that allows various models to be used together in the search for a unified field theory by providing points of reference between them. This allows fields like, Q.M., to use some of their methods outside their normal range, helping in the search for a connection. A classical approach is used whenever possible as this leads to a more intuitive grasp of the model. But with the aid of reference points, it can be viewed from several perspectives at any point.

Why do we need an intuitive model? "At the opposite extreme one can take a stand "against interpretation." and argue that none of these effects require us to think in terms of vacuum fields, or source fields, and that for the purpose of calculation all we need to know about is Schrödinger equation and the other tenets of quantum theory. Such an approach, though perfectly rational,...but also contrary to the way physics has for the most part developed - intuitively and with physical images...most physicists would agree on the value of a single concept that provides intuitive explanations...that the quantum vacuum is just as valuable when we broaden our perspective to include relativistic effects." p.295 [6]

The base of this framework starts with the electron. Standard models are not used so that new ground may be covered in less space, but any model of the electron can be used instead. It begins by correcting the particle persistence problems common to standing wave theories so that classical intuitive framework can be established. Q.E.D. is also used to keep a balanced flow of logical connections to related fields. Connections are found that allows work in Q.M. to have relevance within this framework, and links to Special Relativity established. Even some non - mainstream theories like Mach's principle, of which there are many, are looked at if they have some relevance, and if they provide accurate predictions.

The classic electron orbit model is reexamined and reconciled with the quantum model. Then Quarks and the nucleus are examined along with the strong nuclear force and the meson cloud. Gravity is touched on briefly towards the end along with some close thoughts on Mach's Principle. It ends with some implications for cosmology.

This approach helps unite aspects of Relativity, Classical Wave and Quantum Theory, even Mach's Principle and others, that at first do not seem related into a basic framework. This is hopefully a first step in unifying these fields of study. It should also be a useful tool in comparing models, refining current models, or developing new ones.

The end result is not a perfect fit for all the various models. It does broaden the range of each field’s application for future research. Some conflicts are solved, others remain. So it is hoped that a number of researchers from different fields of study may find this model useful.



My first draft of my theory can be found here.
http://www.wbabin.ne...sics/laster.pdf



Thank you
Charles

[sanctus]

What do you mean by "scalar in nature, or at least spherical"? I mean something is defined to be scalar if it doesn't change under rotation, and spherical is how I understand it something coming from a isotropy hypothesis. So it seems to me that scalar and spherical shouldn't go together, because one describes the properties of a quantity under rotations and the other just the nature of the force in a given "space-time".
It is still early morning so maybe all I said above is not very clear...

[Aireal]

Sanctus

Hi.

Scalar does generally considered a force in one direction. So an expanding sphere can be described as a scalar quantity moving out from the center point. In practice however, it is not that clear cut. An object, like a sphere, can have one vector applied to it to describe angular momentum, and still be considered a scalar value. Gravity, because it is a force drawing things to a central location, can be described as a scalar force. The whole mess has had me confused for awhile also.

Despite the difficulties of using scalar values and descriptions, it has provided me with some insights. I guess it is because I must pay close attention to every value rather than just solving an equation with many values at one time, without thinking about it much.

Charles

[Aireal]

I have updated my paper and have a new link to it in my starting post. Comments welcome, if you agree or not.

Charles

[DryLab]

Aireal said:

I have updated my paper and have a new link to it in my starting post. Comments welcome, if you agree or not.

I read your theory. I like it; it has some elements that could lead us to a much better understanding of nature. For example, your construct of the electron predicts all of relativity phenomena, since its most elemental constituent must always move at the invariant speed of light.

I have come to some very similar conclusions that I write about on my blog.

Keep up the good science !!

[Aireal]

DryLab

Thank you, I will have to check out your blog also. I tried to set my paper up where other theories could use it, not just mine. Plus my knowledge is limited, so I delved no deeper than I needed to.

Charles

[DryLab]

Aireal said:

Plus my knowledge is limited, so I delved no deeper than I needed to.

Keep on delving I think you're on to something that might just lead to some breakthroughs.

[Aireal]

DryLab

You are doing an excellent job yourself. I have looked at your site and was impressed. Good papers and links. It is nice to meet fellow researchers who are looking at the same things. Often a fresh perspective is all one needs to solve a problem.

Charles

[DryLab]

Aireal said:

Often a fresh perspective is all one needs to solve a problem.

My main objective is to keep up with like-minded people who are able to think outside the QM box. If we are successful we can then blend in QM theory, as I see some beginnings of this in your stuff.

[Aireal]

DryLab

I just noticed you provided a link to my paper in your home page. Thank you very much. I will also mention your home page in my posts on other forums.

Thank you for your support

Charles

[DryLab]

Arireal said:

Thank you for your support

You're welcome; I'll try to keep the link intact.

Keep on chuggin !!