The Dance of Shiva

[Felix Schrodinger]

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

HIGGS THEORY AND THE STANDARD MODEL

Higgs Theory consists of the Higgs boson (HB) and the Higgs field though it is the boson which is the important issue. It is argued that another particle - in addition to those already found in the standard model - is necessary to explain mass. The other particles are purported to interact with the HBs which imparts mass to them. This view is so widely held in scientific circles that billions have been spent at CERN on the LHC in order to try and find it. I argue that the HB does not exist and the LHC will not find it. Mass is a function of the waveform as a particle moves. The closest thing to it in my model is the mason which holds the constuents of the particles and creates them, in partnership with other masons, when waveforms collapse.

The standard model consists of fermions (matter particles), bosons (force carriers) and the Higgs boson. The fermions are not in disagreement with my model as I have not yet defined, in detail, how these particles of matter form. However, I do not accept the concept of the bosons; all of the forces of nature can be described in simpler ways without the need to invent these 'messengers'. The graviton is part of my model but the concept is very different from that in the standard model. The HB is a figment as covered above.

[JAK]

Hi Felix,

This is a two-parter. The 2nd part is more important, but here is my 1st part:

(1) My own feeling is that magnetism and gravity are very similar in that they are both effects caused by the warping of space. …

I like it. I prefer warping of space/aether.

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. …

I like it. I prefer warping of space/aether.

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. …

I like it. I prefer warping of space/aether. The collapse is perhaps the wave just falling into the warp created by the particle? It collapses as it falls into the cup? The warp precipitates the collapse? A “pothole”?

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. …

I like it. I prefer warping of space/aether.

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

I like it. I prefer warping of space/aether.

Time comes about from the emission of chronons at regular intervals (the Planck time?) from the masons. …

I am not fond of adding more features. Each new feature must be integrated with other features of the model. This creates burdensome complexity. I would rather treat time as an emergent property of the model – just like “life” and “mind” are emergent properties of systems. (See my website for my ties to systems and negative entropy as Schrödinger proclaimed.)

[JAK]

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 apart. 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.

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). …

I am not fond of lots of features. I prefer warping of space/aether. If the “Y” shaped “pothole” in the aether goes deep and narrow, then anything which fell into the pothole would appear more massive as it went down the “neck”. Further, it would be forced tightly together (strong force). Only as it emerges at the top of the “Y” would it lose mass and attraction (weak force). Also, as it went down the neck, it would appear to be a particle instead of a tightly spinning (angular motion) feature of the stuff that photons are made of. Lastly, this would account for any slight tilt toward the center of a galaxy. The “massive” galaxy center would create a very slight grade out to its edges and account for “lensing”, a well-known phenomena of astrophysics. Thus, gravity becomes a non-force, a mirage caused by the angular motion (spin) while falling into a "Y-pothole" - Einstein's concept. Perhaps “whirlpool” galaxies are telling us something about the smallest scale of matter, too.

Additionally, if a positron and electron collide and create 2 photons, then the conservation of energy says that they are equivalent. Whatever the particles are made of is the same stuff and the same amount as in the 2 photons. (To declare that other factors are involved requires more features and more complexity to resolve it. Ugly.) So, if the amount of “stuff” is the same in 2 particles as in 2 photons, then the difference must relate to spin (angular momentum). A crazy notion might be that a photon has a yin/yang configuration. And if 2 photons collide, 2 yins might spin off together in one direction and 2 yangs might spin off in another direction giving a doubling effect of spin for each particle (positron & electron). With a preference for a yin/yang configuration, when a positron and electron collide, they quickly reconfigure into the yin/yang configuration, thus, creating 2 photons. Whether we call it “yin/yang”, “salt and pepper”, or "Laurel & Hardy" doesn’t matter. The concept is the key aspect.

As a visual model, if you take a "spring", and look at it sideways, it has two ends. If energy travels along the wire, it will appear to have direction and waves (a photon). If, on the other hand, you look down the “barrel” of the spring, then any energy following the wire would appear to be circling in one location (a particle).

I believe that the depth of the “Y” shaped pothole is related to “time”. Perhaps things become more massive as they fall out of the present.

Also, I am suspicious of the results of colliders. When you slam one particle into another, what gets examined afterwards is the debris field. If you throw a hand-grenade into a pile of springs, the debris may leave springs clipped into the shape of “C” or “O” or “S” and many other pieces. To name every shape of debris found after a collision may not be useful.

I would prefer to eliminate features of the universe in order to find a key feature which explains virtually everything. Aether, angular momentum, and “Y-potholes in time” seem to explain much.

… all of the forces of nature can be described in simpler ways without the need to invent these 'messengers'. …

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Fredrick]

Hi Fredrick

I am convinced that the aether is part of the underlying explanation of our very real world and that it's rejection is the reason why 'physics' currently finds itself in such a hole. Whilst my particular model may not be correct, you must admit that it can be used to link and explain more facets of reality than most paradigms.

regards
Felix

The whole point, Felix, revolves around the question whether there is bathwater with the baby or if it is just the baby. My take: we must focus on the baby to get the whole for our toe, questioning the bathwater is a side-issue, itself not that important. I have no beef with ether, but rejecting one of the two views will leave you one-eye blind.

The fundamental concept that must be valid for a toe to be valid addresses the dimensional aspects of our universe head-on. If it doesn't then it is not a correct delivery we can use for our toe. 3D does not deliver, and therefore we are looking for the ether, to explain what 3D does not capture.

My 2D+ concept contains all spatial aspects, QM, and explains why ether is the bathwater.

3D is left-right, up-down, front-back. Static, incomplete.

There is no beef with ether or non-ether, because that's not where the toe finds its clarification. It is with in and out where our universe finds its most fundamental spatial aspect. Our entire universe is moving outwardly, the single most important spatial aspect imaginable, and it is not addressed by 3D.

The dance is part of our universe and the dimensional concept that helps explain the toe will therefore contain the dance. 3D is static and has no dance inside.

[Fredrick]

(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.

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!

Felix, I am trying to get more GSOH in my life, but I guess enjoying other people's GSOHs is also a pleasure.

To bring GR and QM together, the model needs to be correct. 3D is not the model that can deliver, no matter how handy it is for us in daily life.

2D+ is the underlying principle that with division as fundamental aspect, we end up with at least 2 parts that each contain the original. Just like we have two eyes, each eye followed the single (complex) instruction to create an eye.

As I already mentioned in 'An Idea,' the in-out pair is the most important spatial pair in our universe and must therefore be included in our spatial concept to bring us to full understanding. 3D does not provide this intrinsically, so some of us have gone to 10 or eleven dimensions to explain the whole spatial reality. 2D+ reduces the picture to its essence, and has gone to just the basic 2.

1D can best be visualized as a rod, with static point A and not static point non-A at each end. Though A is static, it is moved around in place by non-A. We end up with a disk, with A in the middle, and non-A moving around in this therefore by both aspects created disk. The disk is static also, though it contains the not static part of the rod non-A.

1D is the conceptual visualization of a screen or picture, but it is not length times width, it is a flat circle.

The second D, with B and non-B, added to 1D is fit in such a manner that A and B are located in the same spot, with non-A and non-B moving around in non-parallel tracks (conceptually best to visualize this as perpendicular). At AB we find a 'static' part being pulled by the two not static aspects on non-A and non-B, together creating a globe (or ball, if you wish).

This feature contains all aspects of up-down, left-right, back-front, and in-out. 1D starts out simple, A and non-A, and brings us quite easily to the delivery that contains and explains both classic GR and QM.

[Felix Schrodinger]

(1) The whole point revolves around the question whether there is bathwater with the baby or if it is just the baby.

(2) The fundamental concept that must be valid for a toe to be valid addresses the dimensional aspects of our universe head-on. If it doesn't then it is not a correct delivery we can use for our toe. 3D does not deliver, and therefore we are looking for the ether, to explain what 3D does not capture.

(3) There is no beef with ether or non-ether, because that's not where the toe finds its clarification.

(4) The dance is part of our universe and the dimensional concept that helps explain the toe will therefore contain the dance. 3D is static and has no dance inside.

Hi Fredrick

I welcome your input but don't accept much of what you say - have you actually read my article?

(1) You could say the aether is the bathwater and our real world the baby - we need both for a TOE. But the analogy is not right because that would mean that the baby springs from the bathwater.

(2) The 3D+T world works well for me and we don't require extra 'dimensions'. We may, however, require extra 'degrees of freedom' to explain the underlying construction - as in string theory.

(3) The aether is fundamental to my TOE.

(4) But 3D+T is not static. The Dance of Shiva is the sound of the clock ticking (the CBR) and it is unreasonable to consider 3D without T as that would be static.

regards
Felix

[Felix Schrodinger]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]If the “Y” shaped “pothole” in the aether goes deep and narrow, then anything which fell into the pothole would appear more massive as it went down the “neck”.

Hi JAK

I split the issues into individual posts to make them easier for responding. If there are too many in one post then some get lost.

I'm not sure how your 'Y' works as it is not part of my model. However, I don't have a clear view on how particles are actually developed from the collapse of the waveform so if this relates, could you explain it further?

regards
Felix

[Felix Schrodinger]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]A crazy notion might be that a photon has a yin/yang configuration. And if 2 photons collide, 2 yins might spin off together in one direction and 2 yangs might spin off in another direction giving a doubling effect of spin for each particle (positron & electron).

But JAK - photons don't collide - if they did then we would not be able to see anything!

I think the electron/photon relationship is fundamental and the electron/positron collision is a clue but I'm not sure where to go on this one?

regards
Felix

[Felix Schrodinger]

(1) I am suspicious of the results of colliders. When you slam one particle into another, what gets examined afterwards is the debris field. If you throw a hand-grenade into a pile of springs, the debris may leave springs clipped into the shape of “C” or “O” or “S” and many other pieces. To name every shape of debris found after a collision may not be useful.

(2) I would prefer to eliminate features of the universe in order to find a key feature which explains virtually everything.

Hi JAK

(1) I wholeheartedly agree

(2) My key feature is the aether and I have developed a model which makes use of existing features to the optimal extent - the HB becomes a mason; gravitons are retained but their function changed; fermions as per the SM; the function of chronons is explained; unnecessary features are eliminated (which means the bosons).

regards
Felix

[JAK]

...
I'm not sure how your 'Y' works as it is not part of my model. However, I don't have a clear view on how particles are actually developed from the collapse of the waveform so if this relates, could you explain it further?
...

I believe my Y-shaped model directly relates to "the collapse of the waveform".

With Einstein's warping of space around mass, it creates what I euphemistically call a "pothole". However, I envision this warp as being more like a funnel which is wide at the top and narrow at the bottom. It may even be "cone" shaped (conical). The funnel shape, though, appeals more to me. Viewed from the side, it would look like a "Y".

Because of galaxy "lensing", photons are obviously affected by warping of space and will curve through a warp.

Now, the recent findings regarding two lasers "pointed" at each other producing an electron and a positron implies interaction of the photons. Perhaps "collide" was not a good term. But most experiments with light hardly compare with the intensity of lasers. The likelihood of a "head-on collision" without a laser is virtually nil. And even with a laser, it didn't sound like they created a fountain of electrons and positrons. So, even in the experiment, the critical interaction was extremely rare. Thus, the angle must need to be "perfect" as well as the sychronicity of frequency.

In any event, some rare interaction caused the production of 2 particles of matter of opposing polarity. Should the particles collide afterwards, 2 photons would be produced. This tells me that the photon configuration is preferred. It also would suggest that the splitting of photons might be common with the lasers pointed at each other. However, few turn into particles because, after a split, the pieces quickly line up again with a partner piece - positives linking with negatives. It is only when 2 of the same polarity meet and then spin off together does a particle appear. And as one pair spins off, it leaves a pair of the opposite polarity alone. Unable to find a partner, these two also spin off.

Of course, the interaction might be uglier. At the point of collision between the light beams, many photos might be split with millions of loose "postons" and "negtons' which furiously recombine as photons. But the are changing partners. "Bill" and "Mary" may have been one photon pair while "Jim" and "Alice" were another. After the splits, "Bill" may end up with "Alice" and "Jim" end up with "Agnes" and "Mary" may go off with "Juan". However, the sensitivity of our instruments do not allow us to see this. All we see are photons, photons, photons. And every once in a while, we see "Jim" and "Bill" exit the "dance" together (a positron), and "Mary" and "Alice" might leave together, too (an electron).

To me, either the angular momentum is key, and circumstances get photons to spin in tight circles creating particles. Or photons are complex (multiple features) which, when broken up, have differing behavior. As much as I hate new features, the latter is more appealing.

Somehow, going from photon to particle sends the particle "down the drain" of the Y-shaped "pothole" in space. If the spin a particle is accentuated, then it is more likely to collapse. Thus, if a photon has dual aspects with opposite spins (+ & -) and it "collides" with another photon, then if the photons split and the pieces reconfigure in the normal (preferred) configuration, the photons go their merry way.

However, when recongealing after a collision, the two "+" pieces get stuck together and the two "-" pieces get paired, suddenly the angular momentum is accentuated and this "spin" results in the warping of space creating the collapse and the particle.