The Incremental Universe

[WillieB]

First I must admit that I have absolutely no formal education in physics beyond that normally required for undergraduate work toward an electrical and mechanical bachelor's degree. At that time I was struck by the unsatisfactory explanations offered for the existence of action at a distance. I needed more than vague references to the "exchange of virtual photons." What were these ephmeral particles? What did they look like and how did they exert the physical force necessary to actually move the nail toward the magnet or to cause two adjacent conductors to move toward or away from one another? These questions lodged in the back of my mind for years. Eventually I mentally invented a tiny entity that beatifully fulfilled my need for an explanation. But once this entity was invented a myriad of expalnations of the existence of other phenomena literally fell into my lap.

 

Because this entity was the smallest dynamic grain, the smallest increment, that existed in the universe I called it "The Increment." Its existence allowed me to explain to myself the mechanics of all of the field forces, magnetic, electric, and gravity. It permitted me to understand the basics of the formation of matter, the variance of mass, time and length with velocity, matter-energy equivalency, the dual nature of matter, and on and on and on.

 

If you do go to the site I must caution you that a firm understanding of the makeup and operation of the increment itself is crucial to grasping its potential. Although I do have some trepidations in potentially mentally jousting with some of the braniacs that frequent this site, I look forward to receiving any comments, suggestions, and even any criticisms.

 

http://www.theincrementaluniverse.com

[InfiniteNow]

I have been told that references to sources other than those posted on this site can be interpreted as spamming. Further, I am a brand new member and am not yet authorized to post links.

Supporting a claim with a quote and a reference is not spam. It's a good idea also to use the works of at least two other reputable sources to support one's own claims, as any one can write any thing and use it as a reference for themselves.

 

Once your post count rises above 10 or 15, you will be able to post links. However, as I mentioned above, I would personally advise you to support your work and your claims with links to other sources, not just your own.

 

Now, per your discussion, can I ask for more information regarding your increment? Does it fill a void left by Unified Field Theory? How does it compensate for the current curiosity which is quantum enganglement?

 

Thanks for sharing, and for reintroducing me to my own curiosity. :hihi:

 

 

Cheers. :(

[WillieB]

TO: Infinite Now

 

Thanks for your quick reply. First I believe that the increment is at the very center of the Unified Field Theory. As to your second question, you have hit upon the most difficult area I experienced in the preparation of my paper. Initially I felt that, as the functioning of the increment required attractive and repellant forces, that a new previously unknown field or force would be required. I called this field the A/R force. Then I came to realize that these forces were really the familiar strong and weak forces. I was forced to conclude that the strong force increased with proximity and that the weak force actually increased with distance and that it served as the carrier for the field that provides the phenomenum known as quantum entanglement.

 

In any case I had a great deal of fun compiling the paper and I look forward to many many discussions regarding its content.

 

WillieB

[InfiniteNow]

Okay, some feedback and questions... :D

 

Your artile speaks of charge bundles travelling on a path, but aren't you trying use these incremental charge bundles to describe the universe itself? Where/what is the path then? Also, your opening does not take into account the continually popping into and out of existence of virtual particle/antiparticle pairs.

 

It seems that you are using existing concepts to explain your own, yet you propose that your own replaces these existing concepts. If anything, maybe you've gone one level smaller... but we still cannot see what makes up the increments... these charge bundles themselves nor their flow.

 

You mention that it is the momentum of the charge bundles which provides the energy to move the increments through space... what then provides the momentum, and again, what are they moving through?

 

On page 7, your figure for spin vectors (the arrows on your circles) imply that the force is flowing simultaneously in both directions. Can you clarify? Is your intended meaning that the direction of spin is arbitrary, but whatever it is, it will reverse when approaching another charge bundle?

 

In section 4, you speak of the increments traveling through a tube of empty space, yet you seem to be using the increment to describe space itself. This is unclear, and appears at first glance that the increments are both an object IN space and a constitient OF space...

 

You discuss these increments as replacing the strong and weak forces, yet also say that the increments are held together end to end using the weak force and side by side using the strong force. The paper has many such seeming contradictions.

 

 

I don't begin to claim that current and existing theories have everything figured out, nor that your concept has nothing to offer. I do ask, however, how this theory fits with existing data, what predictions it makes, and how those can be tested? Also, why is your idea better than existing theories? How does it fill gaps in understanding left by the currently accepted models?

 

Why should I buy your special one of a kind VCR when I already have a DVD player? Silly analogy, I know, but I think you get the drift. ;)

 

 

Cheers. :) :) :)

[WillieB]

Infimite:

 

First thanks for reading the paper. You have raised a lot of points and I am disappointed in that, obviously, I have not done as good a job as I thought in making my thoughts clear. I will try to address your comments and questions in the order in which they were presented.

 

1.(a) The charge bundles, both paired bundles and single bundles, do not travel on "a path" through space except in the sense that they are accompanying the increment which is formed by their orbits. The paired bundles are orbiting around and through the circular orbit of the single unpaired charge bundle at the center of the increment. Please look at figure 1. It was very hard to produce a picture of what the increment looks like and, truthfully I am not very happy with what the artist produced in this case. It was difficult for me to describe exactly what I wanted. The heavy arrows are supposed to represent the paired bundles on the exterior portion of their orbits. Although it is difficult to tell from the illustration, they are not only travelling from end to end (and through the center) they are also spinning around the axis of the torus on a spiralling path.

 

(:hihi: No. I am not representing the increments as comprising space itself. In my view, space is simply a vast void containing nothing but the increments and their charge bundles and a carrier for the strong and weak force. What that carrier is I haven't the slightest idea and it is not really discussed in my paper.

 

© I briefly refer to the scintillation aspect of particle formation and disappation in empty space in footnote 2 of discussion item 5.

 

2. In no way do I claim that the substance of the paper replaces any theory or concept. I like to think that its concepts explains the success of many.

 

 

Sorry - I am out of time today. I will return tomorrow and continue this discussion.

[InfiniteNow]

Sorry - I am out of time today. I will return tomorrow and continue this discussion.

Wonderful, and thanks for what you've addressed already. Please note that I am, by no means, an expert on any of these topics. I just ask that you pretend I'm stupid (trust me, once you get to know me better, it gets easier to do :doh: ), and explain things to me like I don't understand.

 

 

Also, you should soon be able to post your link as your Hypography post count is growing:

 

http://www.theincrementaluniverse.com

 

 

Cheers again. :hihi:

[Aireal]

WillieB

 

Actually your idea has a lot in common with Heisenberg's unpublished theory of 1930, sometimes known as Heisenberg's lattice world. It was an unfinished theory of his that we only have fragments of from a couple of sources. He was looking for the smallest increment to use as a basic unit of length to simplify his calculations. He also believed it would help to explain many facets of physics that we are still trying to answer today. Here is a link to a thread where I was applying his work to W.S.M. theory. http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/about453.html

 

In it you will find referances to where you can find out more about his work in that reguard. Hope it helps.

[WillieB]

To Alreal: Thanks! That does interest me and I will go to your link as soon as possible.

 

To the Infite One. Let's continue where I Left off. Your next point dealt with the momentum of the paired bundles. Their orbital velocity provides the momentum just as the Earth possesses momentum in its orbit of the sun.

 

As I explained above the paired bundles' orbits contain a vector which is parallel to the axis of the increment. The bundles are also spinning around this axis as they attempt to follow the circular orbit of the unpaired bundle in the core of the increment. And no. The increments never reverse their spin. However they will adjust the orientation of their axes due to the proximity of another increment.

 

I hope that the concept of space and the single bundles pairing up and entering into orbits to form the increment was made clear in the paper and in remarks above. If you can come to believe in the existence of the increment and their interactions and accept the presence and characteristics of the strong and weak forces everything will simply fall into place for you.

 

The increments DO NOT replace the strong and weak forces. They are strongly influenced by them.

 

For the life of me I cannot conceive of any prediction that can be gleaned from this concept. I am excited about it for it is in such strict conformance with known (and, from my viewpoint, previously unexplained) facts. I am hoping that it catches the imagination of persons much more accomplished than I and that they can advance the basic knowlege as to how our universe operates.

[WillieB]

Aireal

 

Sorry, I misspelled you moniker in my reply to Infinite. You were right. I went to your link and there is a striking resemblance. I feel that I was lucky in lacking a more extensive formal education. I could let my imagination run wild unfettered by the neccesity of mathematical backup.

 

I do really believe that the Increment is at the heart of our universe and I pray that someone will attempt to advance my reasoning.

[WillieB]

I just happened to read the very first line of discussion item 1 and I can see why you were confused as to my concept of space. I made a bad error in my phrasing. I wrote it so long ago that I simply accepted it without thinking. It now starts out "Space itself consists of a...." That was a bad error. It should have read "Otherwise empty space contains...." I offer my apologies.

[Turtle]

Actually your idea has a lot in common with Heisenberg's unpublished theory of 1930, sometimes known as Heisenberg's lattice world. It was an unfinished theory of his that we only have fragments of from a couple of sources. He was looking for the smallest increment to use as a basic unit of length to simplify his calculations. He also believed it would help to explain many facets of physics that we are still trying to answer today.

Very informative Aireal! We have just such an increment description here at Hypography, called the Euclidean Natural Unit which is based on the frequency of Hydrogen. Here's a link to the thread:

http://hypography.com/forums/physics-mathematics/7899-euclidean-natural-units.html

PS Thanks Frank!:D

[WillieB]

Aireal:

 

I direct this to you as I believe that you would be most competent on formulating an answer. Why does the formula for the mass-energy equivalency fall so easily from the required velocity of the increments and the orbital velocity of the paired bundles? Believe me, I did not contrive to inject these velocities into the picture. They simply were required by the physical conditions that developed in the preparation of the paper.

[Aireal]

WillieB

 

You overestimate my mathamatical prowness. I do remember reading an article about your question, but I can not answer it off the top of my head. I did however read your paper on the incremental universe and found it quite interesting, i shall have to go over it in detail later. Heisenberg used the radius of the electron in his work, as that was the smallest unit he was aware of. Also, just like Heisenberg's work, I find it compatable with W.S.M. theory. In addittion, did you go to the link mentioned by Turtle. The thread about the Euclidean Natural Unit ties in with your Incremental Universe. The only real problem is that some of what you suggest is beyond our ability to test at this time, however that can be good, as it gives a prediction to test for. Work like this is approaching old problems from a new angle to see if that viewpoint may give insight where current models have failed. Quantum Field theory, W.S.M., and others are approaching it from different angles.

 

Right now my best advice is to find people who think such an approach is vaild, like those in support of the Euclidean Natural Unit, form a group or start a thread, and hammer out the details together. Maybe find a site devoted to a simular concept, or start one.

[WillieB]

The original posting of THE INCREMENTAL UNIVERSE has been on this thread for more than two months now and it has generated almost no sustained interest and very few comments. This is posted to provide a clearer picture of the makeup empty space as envisioned from within the content of that paper.

 

If you possessed infinitely strong eyesight, if you could clearly see even the smallest grains composing our universe, what would that few cubic centimeters directly in front of your eyes look like? The paper presented the increment as an intact entity traveling through space as an organized unit constantly adjusting its orientation of the flow’s of its orbits in response to the proximity of like or unlike increments that it met on its path. To some degree that was and is an accurate depiction of what occurs and it served to explain the concepts of the paper. However, that picture fails to completely describe the paths of the paired bundles (pb’s)that are orbiting the single unpaired bundle (ub) at the center of the increment. If you have forgotten what an increment looks like and how it functions go to http://www.theincrementaluniverse.com and take a look at Illustration 1. The arrows represent the pb’s on the exterior portion of their orbits around the circular path of the single ub at the center. The shaded area represents the path of the pb’s as they traverse the center of the increment, passing through the circle formed by the orbit of the single ub.

 

Now remember that when two like increments collide the flows of the pb’s on their exteriors are parallel. That permits the pb’s to be freely exchanged between increments. Further, consider that while on the exterior portion of their orbits the pb’s are actually stationary with respect to the point in space that the increment is passing through, that point directly in front of your eyes. Looking only at the increments traveling either directly left or directly right and at the pb’s that are at the at the midpoint of their orbits on the exteriors you will see a multitude of increments absolutely stationary with respect to your eyes. On the other hand, if you look only at the pb’s that are in the exact center of the interior portion of their orbits all of them will be traveling either to the left or to the right at a velocity of 2cxsquare root of 2. If you widen your vision to encompass the entire scope of a small volume of space what you will see is a seething sea of pb’s vibrating on all vectors at a velocity varying from zero to the maximum of 2cxsquare root of 2. while the circular orbits of the ub’s go sailing by in all directions at a velocity of cxsqure root of 2 .

 

I challenge all of you to construct a better picture to illustrate the energy contained within the absolute absolute vacuum of empty space

[Jay-qu]

I challenge you to prove it. :)

[WillieB]

Jay-Qu

 

Would that I could! I freely admit that the paper is simplistic. Fortunately I am not a professional physicist so I am not forced to prove anything. For me the presence of overwhelming logic is sufficient and I am not required to reduce the hypothesis to mathematics but I do challenge you to produce a more convincing model of the finest grains of the universe and their interactions. In any case, thanks for reading the material and commenting on it.

 

By the way, if you have any interest at all I am also posted on http://www.toequest.com/your-toe-theory. If you have any interest at all you may want to go there as there are quite a bit more discussions on that site.

 

Most Sincerely, WillieB

[Jay-qu]

Jay-Qu

 

Fortunately I am not a professional physicist so I am not forced to prove anything.

 

No you are not forced. You are asked. And since you dont offer any, your theory remains a trivial mental exercise of logic, that may well be consistant, but remains none-the-less hypothetical.

 

Im not criticising you, for all I know it could be correct (though I highly doubt it). I am only pointing out the scientific way of doing things. Also for this reason this thread may better belong in the Strange Claims forum.