The Dance of Shiva

[JAK]

... (1) Physics has made no major progress in the last sixty years or so - the longest period in modern history. It is unable to bring gravity and the standard model together (as in quantum gravity) and is deperately searching for a new paradigm which will enable it to move forward from the current impass. String theory is a desperate attempt to bring this about but is not delivering the goods. Most current books on popular physics include a section on the current impass but, in particlar read Lee Smolin's 'The Trouble with Physics' and Peter Woit's 'Not only Wrong'. ...

I'll go do my homework. In the meantime, as I recall, you and I are fond of Einstein's curvature of space idea rather than gravity and gravitons. (Right?) I believe it may be more fruitful pursuing Einstein's lead. It simplifies the "number of players" in a ToE which assists in the reduction.

I was hoping to find an idea using angular momentum spinning around a dipole structure in relation to magnetism. However, Uranus is being difficult:

"... the magnetic axis of the intrinsic magnetic field of Uranus was far from spin axis-aligned ..." - http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/ura_mag.html

Also, an electromagnet provides a tool for starting, stopping, and playing with magnetism. How do we hold such power? I am curious about magnetism with other configurations than just a simple iron bar wrapped in wire. If the central bar was hollow, how would it (if any) affect the result? What if it was wrapped with various insulating materials? What if the core was filled with different materials? What if the central bar was "rifled".

My gut sense is that magnetism and Einstein's curvature of space hold the keys. That somehow, particles and subparticles are just mirages of a deeper truth.

As frequency gets higher, EMR becomes more particle-like with photons at one end and x-rays at the other. Electrons are considered one of the simplist of particles. Do the just have "spin" (angular momentum)? Or do they have a frequency? When carrying a piggyback photon, they jump to a higher shell and then spit our the photon, right? Then they scurry back to the lowest shell.

Meanwhile, lasers were pointed at each other, and electrons and positrons emerged. This implies the stuff of a positron and and electron is just refried (or respun) photon. In other words, electrons, positrons, and photons are essentially the same thing with different spin factors.

Is all of this still "textbook"? If not, gimme a link to the latest info.

Felix, here's your homework assignment: http://www.phy6.org/earthmag/lodeston.htm

I think this is the doorway to the answer.

... (2) David's aether appears less specific to me but why don't you ask him? ...

Again, more homework. "I'll be back," as my California governor would say.

... (3) I don't think he (Fredrick) likes it but you should address the question to him ...

More homework. "I'll be back."

... (4) GR = General Relativity; SR = Special Relativity; LR = Lorentzian Relativity; QG = Quantum Gravity; SM = Standard Model; BB = Big Bang; BH = Black Hole; CBR = Cosmic Background Radiation; EM = electro magnetism; EMR = Electro Magnetic Radiation; SH = Stephen Hawking; Wiki = Wikipedia; WPD = wave particle duality; SF = strong force; WF = weak force; IMHO in my humble opinion; GSOH = good sense of humour!

Hope this helps

It does. Thanks!

[Felix Schrodinger]

(1) My gut sense is that magnetism and Einstein's curvature of space hold the key.

(2) That somehow, particles and subparticles are just mirages of a deeper truth.

Hi JAK

(1) My own feeling is that magnetism and gravity are very similar in that they are both effects caused by the warping of space. No matter is stationary - all matter is travelling through space at a very high velocity (about 30,000km per second according to one estimate). So what we see as gravity and magnetism is a slight deviation in the path of a particle as it hurtles along. The deviation we call gravity is due to the presence of mass which distorts space and creates a new path of least resistance'. Magnetism is brought about by an imbalence in the charges on groups of particles. Einstein's and Clerk-Maxwell's equations have been brought together by others indicating that these two effects are very similar but of different magnitudes.

(2) It depends on which is the real one. As I live and work in this world. I hold it to be the real one - at least at present. But the underlying one - which includes the aether - is more real in an absolute sense as our world derives from it. In this sense the matter particles of our world are indeed just an indicator of what lies beyond.

I will expand on the compatibility and differences between my model and other theories in a set of posts to follow shortly.

regards
Felix

[Felix Schrodinger]

Can you briefly summarize the major paradigms with which your ideas are consistent as well as which ones are in conflict?

GRAVITY/QUANTUM GRAVITY

My model does not, in any way, detract from Einstein's general relativity (GR) but the viewpoint is very different. Einstein produced a set of elegant mathematical formulae which enable one to calculate the effects of gravity but he did not produce any explanation of the underlying mechanism. My model does just that but without the math. The warping of space, in the presence of mass, must have a physical description but Einstein went straight to the numbers without even understanding the physical reality. My model uses an aether which is constructed of masons joined together by strings which I call gravitons. These gravitons are fixed between the masons forming the grid like structure which I call aether. As a massive particle travels through the aether, it does so as a waveform which is a vibration of the gravitons. This vibration is proportional to the mass of the particle and it causes a tension in the graviton/string which pulls the masons together, accounting for the bending of space. Particles just follow the path of least resistence which is a curve as described in GR.

Gravity is, therefore, just an effect and there are no gravitons moving back and forth as many eminent physicists postulate. The gravitons are part of the structure of the aether (Einstein's 'fabric of space') and do not move - they simply stretch and shrink. My model is, therefore, a quantum gravity model - a framework which Einstein sought but never found.

To summarise - Einstein described the math but my model postulates what the underlying structure looks like. He used formulae and I use words and diagrams.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Can you briefly summarize the major paradigms with which your ideas are consistent as well as which ones are in conflict?

WAVE PARTICLE DUALITY

The most popular theories on this subject are (1) The Copenhagen Interpretation and (2) Parallel Worlds. I firmly reject both of these explanations.

My model explains WP duality quite simply - particles move as waveforms and only collapse as real particles when they come into proximity with another and the critical value of the probability function is exceeded. What happens in the dual slit experiment is that the waveform passes through both slits to create an interference pattern. If we place an observer at one of the slits he uses a detector to tell when a particle passes through that slit. The detector, of course, must create an interaction with the particle in order to detect it. This interaction causes the waveform to collapse hence the particle will have to start again from the slit and no interference is viewed. Copenhagen requires the presence of an observer to explain this but this is simply a misunderstanding of WP duality.

This explanation for WP duality is part of my model, but also exists under the name of 'Objective Collapse Theory'. Having such a simple explanation it should be deemed unnecessary to invent parallel worlds and other such sci-fi concoctions.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Can you briefly summarize the major paradigms with which your ideas are consistent as well as which ones are in conflict?

THE CASIMIR EFFECT

This is not a main-line issue but I may as well deal with it and get it out of the way. The Casimir Effect says that: when we have two plane faced metal plates very close together in a vacuum, then the plates will experience an attraction which is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the separation.

Current explanations are very wooly and can be boiled down to "since there are more particles in the universe outside of the space than inside of it then the plates will be forced together". This makes no sense as there is a vacuum on both sides of both plates. It does not even start to explain the measured effect being related to the fourth power of the separation.

My explanation uses stretching of the gravitons in the space between the plates. The aether which is creating the massive particles of the metal plate is very dense due to the mass present whereas the aether which forms the gap between the plates has no massive particles and hence is less dense. The aether has, therefore, to undertake a considerable change in density at the face and this results in extreme stretching of the gravitons which attempts to pull the plates together.

A diagram is located in the main article.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Can you briefly summarize the major paradigms with which your ideas are consistent as well as which ones are in conflict?

AETHER

Following the Michelson Morley experiments on the speed of light the aether concept was abandoned. Special relativity was purported to disprove the existence of an underlying fabric despite Einstein's description that gravity was an effect caused by the bending of space. Einstein himself supported the view that there was an aether - the 'fabric of space'. Since then, with the exception of the standard model, much of physics has found itself in a bind due to the premature rejection of the concept. The MM experiment did not actually disprove its existence only that the view of the aether at that time was incorrect.

At least two major areas of current research support the existence of an aether though they tend to call it something different to avoid the ridicule of their peers. String theory is 'background dependent' - a euphemism for requiring an aether and gauge theory encompasses a similar concept.

My proposition is that reality is much easier to describe - and the description is more likely to be supportable - if it encompasses an aether.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Can you briefly summarize the major paradigms with which your ideas are consistent as well as which ones are in conflict?

TIME AND THE COSMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION

Despite much writing on the subject, there is no clear model for time. Even SH's book 'A Brief History of Time' says nothing about how it works. Other popular science writers all concentrate their efforts on the Second Law of Thermodynamics as if this told us much about time. Their argument that entropy must always increase is what imparts the arrow of time - but why and how? No answers. In fact entropy does not always increase with time. There are two major exceptions: gravity and the growth of living organisms both reduce entropy but this is glossed over.

My concept of time is a purely mechanical and has nothing to do with entropy. Nor does it depend on motion which is a result rather than a cause. Time comes about from the emission of chronons at regular intervals (the Planck time?) from the masons. They are emitted with apparently random strengths (or lengths as they are strings) and are necessary for a particle's waveform to collapse. Without the presence of a chronon of sufficient charge it is not possible for the waveforms to exceed the critical value of the probabilty function and for particles to form and interact. This on-off switching controls time and hence motion.

The CBR is purported to be the remnants of the Big Bang. My proposal is that it consists of chronons coming in and out of existence - often referred to as 'quintessence'. The CBR is, therefore simply the sound of the cosmic clock ticking.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Can you briefly summarize the major paradigms with which your ideas are consistent as well as which ones are in conflict?

STRING THEORY

String theory originated as an attempt to eliminate the infinities that tended to occur in most theories which do not accept an aether. Instead of accepting that granularity is a fact of life, small loops of vibrating string were introduced in order to make the infinitely small point particle have a finite size which would eliminate the infinities. This has not brought any concrete results and now even Brian Greene - the great guru of strings - has moved on to strings which are anchored at the ends rather than being free loops. This brings string theory and my own model more in line though my current version has the strings (with the exception of the gravitons) attached only at one end.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Can you briefly summarize the major paradigms with which your ideas are consistent as well as which ones are in conflict?

THE STRONG FORCE

According to the standard model, the strong force is mediated by little particles called 'gluons' which fly back and forth between a proton and its partner neutron to stop them flying appart. My model does not require gluons at all. The proton and neutron are held together as they consist of three strings (quarks) emitted by the masons. The central section of the string is held by the mason so there is, in fact, no force to explain. This is illustrated in the article above.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Can you briefly summarize the major paradigms with which your ideas are consistent as well as which ones are in conflict?

THE WEAK FORCE

This is the so called 'force' which is responsible for radioactive decay of over-heavy particles. It requires the interchange of W and Z particles which have been observed in experiments in particle colliders though how they work is another question.

My model argues that this 'force' is, like all of the others, a simple effect. It is the result of over-heavy particles exhibiting a probability function that is very much larger than normal. Thus only the presence of a strong chronon outside of the normal area of collapse is necessary for a sub particle to escape witout the need for a second interacting particle. The need for a chronon infers the time dependency of radioactive decay (half life).