Dynamic Matter

[jackaxama]

I have enjoyed the last several days on the "introductions" forum. I have received some excellent feedback and discussion. This is a great website!

A few members have suggested I start a thread on the "TOE Theories" forum to continue the discussion regarding my research. For those of you jumping in on this thread, I have recently completed a book that, after many years, brings together my research, ideas and conclusions. It is completely available for viewing as a PDF file at my website: www.dynamicmatter.com
I invite anyone interested to take a look.

A few members have started reading it. Austin read the entire treastise and offered these positive and appreciated words about it:

Jack, the ‘Dynamic Matter’ pdf on your site was one of the greatest and convincing expositions that I’ve ever read, resolving several “unresolvable” areas of physics. You must have been delighted when all the math worked out.

There is your simple but ingenious insight of having real particles accumulating from Hawking Radiation even amounting to stars. And the truth of why the curvature of space is not so, plus what is the replacement for the effects of what we thought was from dark matter, how time is of a more consistent movement than the vague ‘motion’ commonly thought of, wave functions all the way up, and even why dinosaurs didn’t collapse from their own mass. You solved a vast amount of dilemmas, Jack.

I’ll leave the details for inquisitive readers to find in the pdf.

I look forward to participating in the forums on this website. And my hats off to Robert for putting together such a top notch website.

Jack Hohner

[AntonioLao]

Jack,

Thanks for the pdf file of your theory. I quickly looked thru the different topics and noted that your theory seems exclusively concentrated on Einstein' improvements of Newton's gravity but without as much indicating the tensor terms of Einstein's field equations. However, we know the facts that both general relativity and Dirac equation of relativistic quantum mechanics were based on matrices and these have imaginary elements. Spinors for Dirac's and tensors for Einstein's. Therefore, I could not find the missing link between these in your theory. Antonio

[dleviwing]

Hi Jack Hohnor;
I must admit when I read your name it reminded me of an old nursery rhyme.

Your theory has many similarities to those of Mark McCutcheon’s in his book “The Final Theory”.

Some of us here at ToeQuest have taken the stance that there exists only a single fundamental physical entity of the universe or “Fundamental Matter”. In science “matter” refers to atoms and subatomic particles; is this what you are referring to in your use of the term “matter” or are you also referring to the “stuff of the universe”?

My concepts of “Absolutes” may provide you with a little more insight to the physical realities of our existence. You can check it out at my blog pages: Toronics

[jackaxama]

Hi Antonio:
Thank you for looking at my book. As for applying Einstein's 16 variable tensor matrix...for the research and evaluations that I finally decided on for publication, I did not have any applications where it was needed. However, in section 7, I do apply Einstein's simple equation from General Relativity for calculating the curvature of light as it passes a star or planet. Older drafts of some sections has some of the matrix stuff. In the end I wanted to make it understandable. There were times when I went back and read older drafts of what I had written, and even I didn't understand it. I took the position that if it wasn't easy to follow it got dumped.

As for the missing link between Quantum and Relativity, I take the positioin in my book that that has already been resolved. In 1921, the mathematician, Edwin Kaluza successfully unified the field equations of GR and EM by utilizing 5 dimensions. Several years later Oscar Klein extended his work to include Quantum Theory. The only problem they seemed to encounter is that no one could accept the idea that the Universe was five dimensional....and hence the Kaluza-Klein treatment lanquished for most of the 20th Century. I am really not qualified to add to their work...but my favorite reference on 5 dimensional unification of GR and Quantum is a book by Paul Wesson titled "Space,Time and Matter." Repeatedly, Wesson and others conclude that the 5th dimension manisfests itself as a variation in matter. But they still seem to stop short of defining the actual nature of the fifth dimension.

I think if I were to try and include Kaluza Klein formulas in my book it could detract from the primary intent...which primarly was to keep the point clear and focused. I have only one theoretical equation in the book, (6.1) and indeed, it is my hope that this equation helps to define the fifth dimension. All of the other math in the book is linear algebra and calculus which is applied to distinct anomalies for which there exists very solid emperical data. What I would call just straight problem solving. It is interesting how the numbers work out.

Thank you for your comments,
Jack

[jackaxama]

Hi DLevi:
Thank you for your comments. I looked at your Toronics link. It seems that many of us are on the same track. It seems you are saying...yes, there is probably a fifth dimension but how does it manifest itself?

On the introduction forum, I brought up Mark McCrutcheon's book is response to a discussion with Austin. For the sake of ease, here is a copy of what I said:

Thanks again Austin, and thanks for the links. Interesting stuff.

There is a recent book that received quite of bit of promotion titled, "The Final Theory" by Mark McCrutcheon. His basic postulate is that the surface of the Earth is expanding outward....at 9.8 meters/sec/sec!! And actually, that idea is quite dated also. In his own words, the diameter of the Earth would be doubling every 18 minutes. I ran the numbers on it once, and if I remember, at that rate of acceleration the surface of the Earth would reach the speed of light in less than 1/2 year! However, there is a way for the acceleration of space to equal that of gravity...without such a extreme dynamic model of an expanding Earth. My thoughts on the subject are available for viewing at my website:
www.dynamicmatter.com

McCrutcheon's postulate actually goes back quite a ways. As I mentioned, there are inherent problems with it that I think has always stifled it. Another one that comes to mind is that if the surface of the Earth is expanding outward at the rate of gravity, and the Sun is doing the same thing....it would not be long before the Sun swallowed up the Earth.

Thanks for the comments. I will study your Toronics some more.

Jack

[austintorn@aol.com]

This is one of my ancestors
reaching out past the edge of the universe into a place,
which, before he got there,
wasn't there, but, upon his arrival,
his E/M waves gave it existence.

Perhaps the boundaries of Mother Nature can give us some insights, such as there seems to be a limit on how small something can be, if there is, how could there already could have been a completed 'forever', if claimed, and stuff like that. As for the rest of her, she may be covered up by Father Time, but we are trying to detect some of the emanations from the beginning with some satellites to come that are better than WMAP.

[dleviwing]

Jack;
I think you’ve misread me; I don’t promote such fantasies as extra spatial dimensions beyond our own 3D universe. See the thread Dimensions and Entities

I’m reading your PDF paper and may have some questions or comments for you latter.

I found McCutcheon’s book to be filled with pure ignorance of real physics and that’s being extremely kind.

[jackaxama]

David:
I think you are correct in that I misread some things. I have been addressing a lot of posts the last few days and may have inadvertently cross referenced yours to another.

Last night I took another look at your Toronics link. Your definition page on waves was excellent. By breaking out concepts into descrete discriptions you bring a clarity to phsyical concepts that evades most.

I just looked at your link to Dimensions and Entities. Again, you take a very pragmatic approach to phsyics, which is much appreciated. It is easy for many to drift over to the philosophical side of theoretical physics. Your statement about Relativity addressing real problems is right on. That was my approach in my research. It is easy to sit back and create multi dimensional theories in one's mind. But the real test of any research and theory is if predictions agree with experiments. Hence the success of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

As for Mark McCrutcheon's book, you and I are in total agreement there. I will take your comment about my theory being similar to McCrutheon's as a premature reaction based on a quick overview. If you read further into the PDF I posted, hopefully you will see that there really is no similarity, other than yes, there may be an inherent dynamic nature to matter.

Thanks for taking a look. www.dynamicmatter.com And I will explore your posting on Toronics further.

Jack

[AntonioLao]

The only problem they seemed to encounter is that no one could accept the idea that the Universe was five dimensional

Actually, theorists have been accepting the 11 dimensions of superstring theory. They derived the quantum of gravity called graviton from superstring theory but no experiment to show its existence.

[Wick]

Hi Jack,

Some questions about your book:

You seem to indicate that there is an assumption that quarks have always been the same size. Much of the premise of you book is that the quark has been increasing in size since the initial event we call the Big Bang.

This confuses me a bit because both observation and the standard model of particle physics indicate that fundamental matter (both quarks AND electrons) never had any "size". The assumption of science is that fundamental bits of matter are dimensionless point particles with no spatial extention at all. So if you double the "size" of a dimensionless point particle, the thing you have is still dimensionless and size-less.

Referring to some of what you wrote on page 9 of your book, I think our respective understandings of the Big Bang differ. This is probably due to ignorance on my part, but here is how I understand it. Because point particles are not spatially extended, you can theoretically pile a whole bunch of point particles at one spatial point (we would call these piled-up-point-particles a singularity. This means that all space and all matter are located in a single spatial point. There is no space outside that point. The point--the singularity--is all there is. This is (according to my understanding) the pre-Big Bang scenario. After the Big Bang, the point particles of energy and matter did not "grow" in size, instead they changed their configuration. It was space that exploded, not matter. But this meant that the point particles, which had been configured inside a single point, could now spread out. It was space that expanded, not the volumetric dimensionality of fundamental matter. So the point particles had a greater degree of freedom to configure in a much less orderly way that "one-point-in-space." Yet they remained dimensionless point particles.

A bit further in your book you bring up the idea of dynamic matter--discussing how matter, energy and space should be interchangable. You also indicate that the space transforming into matter is unidirectional. These seems to me less dynamic than what we currently have. If I look at a Feynman diagram, I can watch a a photon transform into a positron and an electron, and then back into a photon again. In particle accelerators, we even see particles briefly appearing during energetic jet events and then disappearing in the blink of an eye. One might interprete this as matter turning into space AND energy. Does your model permit matter to turn transition into space?

Could you tell me more about your concept of size and mass. I think some of my confusion lies in a difference in the way you and I think about these principles.

More questions in a moment.

Wick