Relativity+

[Farsight]

Sorry I haven't posted much recently. I've been busy preparing a "scientific paper" version of RELATIVITY+, which is now available at this URL:

 

RELATIVITY+

 

Click on the link at the bottom of the single page to download the PDF file. Personally I think it's better to then print it and read it offline, but some prefer to read material like this directly on the screen. Each to his own. Note that this is a "qualitative model", more commonly known as a "toy model". It doesn't qualify as a theory, and it certainly isn't a "Theory of Everything". Doubtless there will be some errors in there, perhaps even a couple of howlers. But I like to think there's at least some good value that advances the cause we're all rooting for. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it. Here's the abstract and introduction:

 

A qualitative 3+1 dimensional geometrical model: RELATIVITY+

 

Abstract

 

Current avenues within physics have do not offer an intuitive understanding of the significant features of the universe. I present a new qualitative model built upon a re-examination of concepts commonly accepted as fundamental and irreducible. The new qualitative model refers repeatedly to the tenets of Special Relativity and the subsuming General Relativity, throws new light on The Standard Model, and is expected to redirect and refocus interpretation thereof via the delivery of powerful insight into the nature of time, energy, mass, charge, gravity, space, and particles.

 

1 Introduction

 

In comparison to the advances of the early twentieth century, physics appears to be at an impasse. Its popularity amongst the population at large appears to be falling, and it appears to be in danger of losing its senior science status to biology. The detailed reasons for this are beyond the scope of this paper, but simple logic dictates that if a rigorous mathematical approach cannot provide the answers we seek, then we must take a searching look at the axioms we use therein. To this end I have returned to first principles to analyse a set of basic concepts that are considered by many to be unsuitable for examination, either because understanding is already presumed, or because such concepts are considered to be fundamental. My analysis indicates that such is not the case, and the result is new understanding that dispels many former mysteries.

 

The initial concept analysed is time. Upon close examination, the commonly-held concept of time is revealed to be so lacking in physical evidence that it is unsupportable. A new concept is developed, and then applied incrementally to energy, mass, charge, gravity, space, and particles. The approach is methodical and logical, initially somewhat metaphysical in appearance, but is so robust that it is able to build step by step to deliver a a geometrical view of electromagnetism, a soliton insight into wave/particle duality, a topological overview of Standard Model fermions, and an understanding of light, energy, and space as aspects of the root fundament of the universe.

 

The tenets of Special Relativity and the subsuming General Relativity recur repeatedly to such an extent that RELATIVITY+ seems an apt working title for the resultant qualitative “toy” model. This is geometrical in nature in 3+1 dimensions, and seems to bear some resemblance to Einstein’s purported goal during the later years of his life. Supporting evidence is arguably already present though requiring interpretational review, and the end product appears so coherent and compelling that further development via the re-application of existing mathematical rigor and computer modelling heralds an attractive and exciting prospect.

 

PS: I used to be user "Popular" here, which is historic, but Tormod graciously changed this to my more common userid "Farsight" to avoid confusion.

[Farsight]

Nobody want to know about Planck's constant then? Or what a neutrino is?

[Buffy]

Nobody want to know about Planck's constant then? Or what a neutrino is?

Unfortunately, many claim to know already, but their understanding may not be the same as yours.

 

But in order to understand these two questions, requires that one reads your paper.

 

Unfortunately I think you may lose quite a few readers at:

The initial concept analysed is time. Upon close examination, the commonly-held concept of time is revealed to be so lacking in physical evidence that it is unsupportable. A new concept is developed, and then applied incrementally to energy, mass, charge, gravity, space, and particles. The approach is methodical and logical, initially somewhat metaphysical in appearance...

...which makes it sound "unreal."

 

And you know what they say about things that "sound too good to be true"...

 

When introducing revolutionary breakthroughs, probably the worst approach is to say "everything you know is wrong, and I'm about to prove it to you." It may sound more sneaky, but you'll find that you have a much easier time if you introduce what you're talking about as a "slight improvement" on existing theory--something that you almost do up until you hit the excerpted quote!

 

Let someone *else* characterize your astounding breakthrough as such: when you say it yourself, it pretty much guarantees that it will be dismissed out of hand, even by those who should know better.

 

Successful Physics requires good Marketing, :thumbs_up

Buffy

[Farsight]

Hmmmn. Shrewd. Thanks for that, Buffy.

[Farsight]

OK. I toned it down a tad:

 

RELATIVITY+

 

A qualitative 3+1 dimensional geometrical model

 

Abstract

Current avenues within physics do not offer an intuitive understanding of the significant features of the universe. I present a new qualitative model built upon a re-examination of base concepts commonly accepted as fundamental and foundational. The new qualitative model refers repeatedly to the tenets of Special Relativity and the subsuming General Relativity, throws new light on The Standard Model, and is expected to redirect and refocus interpretation thereof via the delivery of powerful insight into the nature of time, energy, mass, charge, gravity, space, and particles.

 

1 Introduction

In comparison to the advances of the early twentieth century, physics appears to be at an impasse. Its popularity amongst the population at large appears to be falling, and it appears to be in danger of losing its senior science status to biology. The detailed reasons for this are beyond the scope of this paper, but simple logic dictates that if a rigorous bottom-up mathematical approach cannot provide the answers we seek, then we must take a searching top-down look at the very foundations of physics that provide the axioms we use within our mathematics. To this end I have returned to first principles to analyse a set of basic concepts that are considered by many to be unsuitable for examination, either because understanding is already presumed, or because such concepts are considered to be fundamental. My analysis indicates that such is not the case, and the result is new understanding that dispels many former mysteries.

 

The initial concept analysed is time. A subtle conceptual shift is performed, viewing time as a derived dimension associated with motion, and then applied incrementally to energy, mass, charge, gravity, space, and particles. The approach is methodical and logical, initially somewhat metaphysical in appearance, but is so robust that it is able to build step by step to deliver a geometrical view of electromagnetism along with a new appreciation of Planck’s constant, the fine structure constant, and wave/particle duality, plus an topological overview of Standard Model fermions and the forces along with the combination of matter/energy with space as the root fundament of a flat expanding universe.

 

The tenets of Special Relativity and the subsuming General Relativity recur repeatedly to such an extent that RELATIVITY+ seems an apt working title for the resultant qualitative model. This is geometrical in nature in 3+1 dimensions, and seems to bear some resemblance to Einstein’s purported goal during the later years of his life. Supporting evidence is arguably already present though requiring interpretational review, and the end product appears so coherent and compelling that further development via the re-application of existing mathematical rigor and computer modelling heralds an attractive and exciting prospect.

[InfiniteNow]

Show us your predictions (remember, they must be falsifiable and specific), and how your model is better than what we have already. Where's the math that supports your rhetoric?

[HydrogenBond]

Math does not prove anything more than the assumptions used. I have done this example before, but here it goes again. Say I falsely assume that gravity is due to the repulsion of matter by space. Someone with good math skills can take sort of an reverse of the existing gravity equations to turn the attraction into a type of space repulsion. When the math is done, it would appear to prove my premise, even though it is erronoeus and out of touch with reality. Irregardless the model may have practical value, if the math conversion was done well. It can be used to make predictions, and could even send a man to the moon. It satifies the system, without ever having to be in touch with reality.

 

In this particular case, the whole analysis would be nipped in the bud, because one would recognize the preliminary assumption is wrong. But this one is obvious. If it was more nebulous and hard to prove or disprove, easily, then do the bells and whistles automatically make it true?

 

I don't mean to single out string theory, but this is an easy one to see. One can not prove or disprove its basic assumption. But once it was made, the model satisfies the math protocol and is a good correlation. The new problem can be seen, using the reverse gravity model. If this model had been nebulous enough, not to be easily nipped in the bud, and because it correlates so well, then results from the math can be mistaken as being true. These would then become the premises for mathematical extrapolation. One can see reality is getting lost in the math.

 

The invention of computers compunded the problem since one doesn't even has to solve equation directly, but can use a high speed numerical approximation, that can also correlate very well. The easy explanation would not allow one to justify the biggest computer made.

 

The question is how does one prescreen before the math? This is no longer easy, since we can not easily tell if and when departure occurred. If it did occur, how many levels of departure we are dealing with, such that the loop may have closed on itself, severing its early tail.

 

The only approach I could see was to take a stroll backwards into time and start at a place where physics had convergence of thought. That was a time when chemisty and physics were part of the same thing. It was when they could make A-bombs and H-bombs without computers, using a blend of chemisry and basic physics. After that divergence.

 

The reason I bring this up is because new theories should not be limited by the math. This horse can go anywhere one wants it to.

[InfiniteNow]

Until you have specific and falsifiable predictions based on a mathematical model of what you are proposing, your thesis is no better than another which says "purple unicorns did it."

 

 

If you want your unicorn to become real, you need to describe it mathematically then confirm your mathematical predictions empirically. Until then, you are just another quack with an unproven quack theory.

[Erasmus00]

Math does not prove anything more than the assumptions used. I have done this example before, but here it goes again. Say I falsely assume that gravity is due to the repulsion of matter by space. Someone with good math skills can take sort of an reverse of the existing gravity equations to turn the attraction into a type of space repulsion. When the math is done, it would appear to prove my premise, even though it is erronoeus and out of touch with reality. Irregardless the model may have practical value, if the math conversion was done well. It can be used to make predictions, and could even send a man to the moon. It satifies the system, without ever having to be in touch with reality.

 

Actually, no. Pushing theories of gravity don't work, and haven't worked since Lesage tried to build one. "Pushing" gravity mathematically cannot be made to work with our universe, this is how we know its ruled out. I believe this is worked out in the feynman lectures.

 

It was when they could make A-bombs and H-bombs without computers, using a blend of chemisry and basic physics. After that divergence.

 

The atomic and hydrogen bombs were built on the highly mathematical theories of quantum and classical mechanics. You simply cannot deeply understand the physical world without mathematics.

 

The reason I bring this up is because new theories should not be limited by the math. This horse can go anywhere one wants it to.

 

The only "hard" predictions are quantitative, and ANYTHING quantitative requires mathematics. The only way to rule out any theory is to check its prediction against reality. Hence, if we don't "limit" our theories with math, how can we ever rule anything out?

 

You also seem to be suffering from the delusion you can prove anything you want with math. This is not the case.

 

To keep this on topic- farsight, I cannot see how your theory helps much, without mathematics, how can you predict anything in detail, and without predictions, how is this testable/falsifiable? Also, some of the gross features of your theory don't work out. Consider your knot type configuration for a neutron and a proton. By rotating a proton, you can turn it into a neutron! This is obviously not true in reality. There are other problems, but this is the easiest to delve into.

-Will

[Farsight]

It's a model rather than a theory, Erasmus. It doesn't qualify as a theory, what I present here is a starting position that needs a deal of development to get anywhere. Most of the testable/falsifiable elements are negatives, like "no time travel" and "no higgs bosons", all rather mundane and unsatisfactory. But the lack of prediction hasn't been a problem for String Theory where "the maths is ten years behind the theory", so shouldn't be seen as a showstopper that invalidates this re-examination of basic concepts. I offer what I can, and so far have gone for width rather than depth. I hope to interest others to contribute some rigor and convert it into something more acceptable. I'm particularly interested in tackling this via computer modelling, and will be emailing various people to see if I can entice them to look into it. I say this because it's a way of dealing with the mathematics at a very low level that yields a visible result - it's rather difficult to describe three-dimensional geometrical action with static linear lines of mathematical expression.

 

The point you make about the proton and the neutron is the same point I could make by saying you can turn an "up" quark into a "down" quark by turning it upside down. It's too simplistic. This three-dimensional geometry of twist and turn only involves the three normal dimensions, but it involves relationships rather than absolutes, and it's amazing difficult to grasp unless you play around with some hands-on experience. For example, make a moebius strip. Start with a long strip of paper, draw arrows on it like this →, turn it over, and trace the arrows on to the other side. Now turn one end round through 360º before twisting it 180º and sellotaping. That's basically an electron. Now make a positron by twisting the other way, or by starting with the arrows going this ← way. Then try converting the positron into the electron as per page 30 of the paper. Which way do the twists go? What's up, or down, or left or right? You know there are 180º and 360º angles here, but you can't measure any with a protractor. All very confusing. If you want more, instead of making a moebius strip, do what I said above but apply three 360º turns and three 180 degree twists before taping. Or try cutting the moebius strip down its length a couple of times.

 

Note that there are a few professional physicists thinking along similar lines. I don't know if you read New Scientist, but see page 36 of the 3rd November issue and the Quantum Unentanglement article. Joy Christian's papers are here: arXiv.org Search

in particular see 0703179. Note these excerpts:

 

...It is crucial to note that the ej appearing in the above definition are not the usual self-adjoint operators on a complex Hilbert space, but are the ordinary 3-vectors in the real physical vector space...

 

...appearing therein is not the unit imaginary i = √−1, but a real geometric entity...

 

...a volume form...

 

...a classical relation...

 

...a local realistic model can be constructed to exactly reproduce quantum mechanical correlations...

 

...spacelike separated...

 

...sharper geometrical meaning...

 

...classical, local realistic framework...

 

...orthogonal directions in the physical space...

 

...algebraic properties of the physical space...

 

It's pretty exciting stuff actually.

[Farsight]

InfiniteNow: I have no maths on offer. This is a qualitative model, that's all. A starting position if you prefer. It's unreasonable to dismiss it with hostile words such as "rhetoric" and "quack" because it's not a full-blown theory complete with the rigor you'd like to see. This is a discussion forum. Where else can we discuss matters such as this?

 

HydrogenBond: I share your sentiment. We do physics because we want to understand the world. Mathematics is a vital tool for physics, but it shouldnt be the only tool in the box, and it's not what physics is. I guess I think it should be in the passenger seat, not the driving seat.

[Erasmus00]

It's a model rather than a theory, Erasmus. It doesn't qualify as a theory, what I present here is a starting position that needs a deal of development to get anywhere.

 

Both models AND theories need actual mathematics to make quantitative predictions.

 

But the lack of prediction hasn't been a problem for String Theory where "the maths is ten years behind the theory", so shouldn't be seen as a showstopper that invalidates this re-examination of basic concepts.

 

Actually, string theory takes tons of criticism for a lack of predictions- ALSO many years have been spent developing math to (one day) make predictions.

 

The point you make about the proton and the neutron is the same point I could make by saying you can turn an "up" quark into a "down" quark by turning it upside down. It's too simplistic.

 

This represents a gross misconception of quarks. In your "knot" type configurations for protons and neutrons, the defining relationship is not a topological invariant- hence you can deform one into the other (they are topologically the same). Furthermore, in this case you can relate the two simply by a coordinate transformation- one observer can see a neutron, another a proton.

 

Note that there are a few professional physicists thinking along similar lines.

 

The difference of course being that the articles you mention involve mathematical theories.

-Will

[Farsight]

Both models AND theories need actual mathematics to make quantitative predictions.

Of course they do. Nobody would disagree with that. But right now, this model doesn't. That's where it's at. I offer what I can.

 

Actually, string theory takes tons of criticism for a lack of predictions - ALSO many years have been spent developing math to (one day) make predictions.

I know. This is why I mentioned it. I've had people saying "no quantitative predictions, not worth reading", and then they've turned out to be a String Theorist!

 

This represents a gross misconception of quarks. In your "knot" type configurations for protons and neutrons, the defining relationship is not a topological invariant - hence you can deform one into the other (they are topologically the same). Furthermore, in this case you can relate the two simply by a coordinate transformation- one observer can see a neutron, another a proton.

You've misunderstanding something here. Note this from page 31: "Returning now to protons and neutrons, we can add one twisted loop to the trefoil proton, representing an electron. This counters the spin ½ twist around the trefoil and sets the net charge to zero. We then add another loop to represent the antineutrino. The exact configuration of this is debateable, but should change the trefoil such that alternate crossing points would yield one up quark and two down quarks..." I didn't say the proton and neutron are topologically identical, you did. I know you can't deform one into the other, just as you can't deform the trivial-knot positron into the trefoil-knot proton. But you can perform operations or "take action" to transform one into the other. It's important that you try the moebius-strip handiwork I suggested to get a handle on this. Also play with plates as per page 14.

 

You mentioned earlier that you thought there were some other problems in the paper. If you can tell me what you think they might be, I'd be grateful.

[CraigD]

There exists, of course, a term aptly describing a document addressing an proposed problems such as the one given in the one in one in question’s introduction:

Current avenues within physics have do not offer an intuitive understanding of the significant features of the universe.

…

Its popularity amongst the population at large appears to be falling

…

if a rigorous mathematical approach cannot provide the answers we seek

…

That term is a popularization. A sufficiently compelling popularization can give rise to an new interpretation, in which a supporting new mathematical formalism is offered, and serve to improve understanding and intuition in such a way that new theory is advanced.

 

Rather than debate what sort of document Farsight’s document should be classified under (including, some have suggested, the contentions “crackpot/crank/quack” heading), I think it would be best for all involved to approach it as would an good editor, who’s interest is refining a document into its most effective form.

 

An important part of such an editorial approach is suggesting changes to head off well-founded criticism of the final work, and avoid sections likely to be subject to widespread misunderstanding. With that in mind, I propose reviewing its 40 pages in order, resolving such parts as they’re reached.

 

I’ll begin with the following:

… the

definition of a second as given by the International Organization for Standardization under ISO 31-1:

The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

 

A second is defined to be 9,192,631,770 periods of a particular radiation. But what is a period? We

know that radiation is electromagnetic in nature, and is commonly called light. …

Here, I think, the text leads the reader astray. For although the definition of SI definition of the second suggests, and the following text explores, that one is actually counting the frequency of the light emitted by a very cold cesium-133 atom, what is actually counted in all direct implementation of this standard by cesium atomic clocks is a succession of distinct high voltage events generated by the same crystal oscillator being used to emit (in every case of which I’m aware, via a frequency multiplier, so that rapidity of the events counted is much lower)) 9,192,631,770 Hz photons used to transition electrons in near-0° K cesium-133 atoms from one state of magnetic interaction with its nucleus to another.

 

Thus, this time standard is based, like essentially any other, on counting some whole number of distinct events. It’s not necessary, and furthermore, I believe, is misleading, to consider extraneous factors such as the speed of light, as this section goes on to do.

 

A few paragraphs later the text reads

… the electromagnetic nature yields a remarkable insight: the hyperfine transition is, in barest essence, the result of light moving inside the cesium atom. This is repeated 9,192,631,770 times, and we declare that a second has elapsed.

The first sentence is accurate, and, I agree, a remarkable insight. However, the second appears to imply that the hyperfine transition for cesium-133 occurs 9,192,631,770/s. This is incorrect. In all current caesium clocks, the hyperfine transitions typically require on the order of [math]10^{-6}[/math] s to occur. Once it has occurred, it persists for many seconds – in the highest precision cesium fountain clocks, on the order of 1 second passes between the transition occurring, and being detected.

 

There are several good overviews of atomic clock design and operation, including this NIST webpage

 

PS: Although counting such rapidly occurring events as those counted in atomic clocks seems intuitively a very weird basis for a time standard, it’s fundamentally no different than defining other time standards based on other events such as “how long it takes to use up a 12-pack of beer”, consisting of:

1. A well defined event
   • a high voltage condition on the input terminal of a digital counter
   • taking a can of beer from a refrigerator

[*]An integer number to which to count

• 9,192,631,770
• 24

[*]A unit of “standard time” marked by reaching that number

• 1 second
• ”How long it took us to go through the beer”

The major difference between these two time standards is the number of uncontrolled influences on their respective “clocks” – while there are many difficult-to-control factors affect beer usage, a far smaller number effect atomic electron energy transitions. This is not to say, however, that atomic clocks, or even the event upon which they’re based, can ever be absolutely accurate – some factors, such as temperature and the proximity to other atoms, which cannot be perfectly controlled, effect the hyperfine transition energy of all atoms.

[Farsight]

..However, the second appears to imply that the hyperfine transition for cesium-133 occurs 9,192,631,770/s. This is incorrect..

 

Duly noted. I'll clear that up.

 

Thanks for taking the time to read this. Yes, it is something of a popularization. You may be aware that this paper started life as a series of internet essays intended to help teenagers and serve as the chapters of a popular science book. I found that I couldn't explain even the basics, and when I pushed myself to do so using my IT analytical experience, I found myself gradually developing the model on offer. Yes, there will be errors. I am utterly confident that I will have some things back to front, wrong by a factor of two, plumb wrong, and dead wrong. And yet. And yet... Well, time will tell if there's some value here. I look forward to any other feedback you can offer.