[dleviwing]

Hi Felix;
That’s like saying that both modes are right; actually both modes “WORK” but neither mode may be right. We cannot KNOW the fundamental; we can only know how it behaves with other modes of the same fundamental. Should we use the most complex modes to describe the behavior of it or maybe the simplest of its modes and properties? You cannot make common sense out of uncommon knowledge; if you can’t put it in layman terms then you really do not know what you are talking about.

We can know the fundamental properties but we cannot know the fundamental substance; we, the universe, and our instrumentation are all part of the system.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY It's a great book, imo. "The most successful theory in all of science (and the basis of one third of our economy) says the strangest things about the world and about us. Can you believe that physical reality is created by our observation of it? Physicists were forced to this conclusion, the quantum enigma, by what they observed in their laboratories." http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9780195175592-2

Thanks Nobody;
I think I’ll save my money. The publisher’s write up in that link is the biggest coagulation of hype Bull sh** I’ve heard in a long time. I hope the book is more factual than the publisher's write-up.

Physicist were NOT FORCED to any weird conclusions as suggested and scientists were NOT EMBARASED about any experimental results.This is why I don’t waste my money on these kind of books anymore. If you buy the book don’t accept interpretations; just follow the math if you can.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by dleviwing That’s like saying that both modes are right; actually both modes “WORK” but neither mode may be right. We cannot KNOW the fundamental; we can only know how it behaves with other modes of the same fundamental. Should we use the most complex modes to describe the behavior of it or maybe the simplest of its modes and properties? You cannot make common sense out of uncommon knowledge; if you can’t put it in layman terms then you really do not know what you are talking about. We can know the fundamental properties but we cannot know the fundamental substance; we, the universe, and our instrumentation are all part of the system.

IMO both modes are right and can be explained in layman's terms. But if you hold this view (as expressed by Richard Feynman) then do you agree with Bohr's view which cannot?

As regards the (more fundamental) properties this is just a matter of time and that's what this site is supposed to be about.

[N0B0DY]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Thanks Nobody; I think I’ll save my money. The publisher’s write up in that link is the biggest coagulation of hype Bull sh** I’ve heard in a long time. I hope the book is more factual than the publisher's write-up. Physicist were NOT FORCED to any weird conclusions as suggested and scientists were NOT EMBARASED about any experimental results.This is why I don’t waste my money on these kind of books anymore. If you buy the book don’t accept interpretations; just follow the math if you can.

I think aside from stuff doing stuff it's all hype, Dave, and even then the stuff and the stuff done is arguable to what brand of science we follow.

The book is in large part based on QED and a connection to consciousness, and I guess is more "factual" than outlined.

[Wick]

Welcome, Felix, and thanks for joining this thread. I found Quantum Enigma informative, but I met the book with considerable skepticism. I did buy it because I find myself wanting to refer to the books I've read. I'm pretty much past believing wholesale most of what I read (sadly I've been on a physics binge and now have scores of books on my shelf on the subject. My wife and children think me a bit...well...mad.

I felt compelled to read up on physics, when the theory on post #1 and #2 occurred to me. I thought to myself, "What an idiot you are! Coming up with a theory of everything when you know almost nothing. Try learning a little before you try to best sages like Planck and Einstein."

So I started to read and what I learned is that there has been a schism in the Church of Physics. There are those who believe in a kind of Calvinistic determinism (GR) and there are those more charismatic (Quantum Mechanics) whose faith lies in probabilities. There are lots of sects drifting about between these two camps. In general, there appears to be a considerable amount of dissention.

I think I found the most honest voice in Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble with Physics". I found this particular quote inspirational from page 256, which discusses where the science of physics might have gone wrong: "What could that wrong assumption be? My guess is that it involves two things: the foundations of quantum mechanics and the nature of time." He goes on to say, "I strongly suspect that the key is time. More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are deeply wrong about the nature of time."

I had come to doubt my theory about a year ago. These two simple sentences gave me enough courage to continue thinking about it and nursing it along.

So let me bring the thread back to the theory.

I was looking at a chain link the other day. It was attached by a pair of holes to a square of metal. I have no idea what the thing was used for. It was just lying on a trail in a park near my home.

As is my obsession, I found myself changing this piece of junk into a thought experiment. I saw the flat piece of metal and envisioned Flatland. Sorry to keep coming back to that, but the relation between Flatland and 3-space is the only way I can conceptually handle 3-space and 4-space (I know, dleviwing, there is no 2-space or 4-space. Please humor me here.)

I converted the link to a sphere that was compelled to remain attached (as the chain) to Flatland, such that it was able to phase up through the plane up to a point, but it could not escape the plane of Flatland. It could also phase down through the plane to a point, but once again it's final point was compelled to remain in Flatland.

So the sphere bounces along the axis of Flatland appearing to Flatlanders as a flowing series of circles that converge upon a point, then flowing back through its phases, the Sphere slides through the plane to it opposite pole.

Flatlanders enraged by the sphere's unorthodox abilities accuse it of witchcraft and try to apprehend it, but they find the task quite difficult. Even when the sphere is "cornered", it rolls up the right angle until its final point is nicely wedged in the corner where no figure can coax it out. Try as they might, the Flatlanders fail at their task. All the while they are not able to understand the sphere's true nature.

Is it a circle moving through its phases (a wave)?

Or is it a point (a particle)?

In my theory light is like that, with two exceptions: light has an added dimension as Kaluza suggested and it is not compelled to remain in 3-space. In the double slit experiment, for instance, we perceive the light as a phasing pulse, but when we try to apprehend it in any way, the light slides out of 3-space leaving only the evidence of the place where it was "absorbed". But it was not absorbed. The light was just passing through.

Nonexistent dimensions aside, I am interest in your comments on such a conceptualization, dleviwing.

I think Smolin was right about time being the key. Time is not a dimension. It is the property arising when a hyperplane moving through 4-space reconfigures as a result of 4d light and matter interacting upon the surface of the hyperplane.

[Wick]

Let me quickly add that particles of matter would be no different, in this regard. They, also move through the hyperplane as "hyperspheres," but they slide to a point when we try to apprehend them. The difference is that particles of matter (anything associated with a spinor field) is compelled to remain attached to the hyperplane, like the chain link on that square of metal.

Is this my shortest post ever?!

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Wick I think I found the most honest voice in Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble with Physics". I found this particular quote inspirational from page 256, which discusses where the science of physics might have gone wrong: "What could that wrong assumption be? My guess is that it involves two things: the foundations of quantum mechanics and the nature of time." He goes on to say, "I strongly suspect that the key is time. More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are deeply wrong about the nature of time." I think Smolin was right about time being the key. Time is not a dimension. It is the property arising when a hyperplane moving through 4-space reconfigures as a result of 4d light and matter interacting upon the surface of the hyperplane.

Well Wick - where to start? You may well get the award for the longest postings but I will walk away with the one for the shortest replies! I can't comment much on your TOE because I don't understand it, in particular the concept of the hyperplane.

I'm a great fan of Lee Smolin and wrote to him after reading 'The Trouble with Physics'. He has a big problem with string theory and its use of resources and a preoccupation with background dependency which he worries about continually. Time is not the problem - it's trying to explain the structure of reality without a background - once this is introduced things become a lot simpler. There's a very similar book (but much harder to read) by Peter Woit titled 'Not Even Wrong'.

Certainly time is not a spatial dimension so it comes down to your definition of a 'dimension'. If 'degree of freedom' is used instead then it's easier to see time in context and also to see where string theory's extra dimensions might make sense.

Doctor Johnson once said "I'm sorry this letter is so long but I didn't have time to write a short one."

regards
Felix

[dleviwing]

Hi Wick;
I think I would like Lee Smolin’s book; the trouble with physics would make a good topic for another thread if you would like to discuss it. Let’s discuss our views of light though.

Let me try to explain light in a way that is supported by the massive amount of data even though it is not supported by the current theories (beliefs) all that much. If we say light is a wave then we need to explain what is vibrating. Space has been defined as an entity called “spacetime” that can distort and thus also vibrate; we used to call it “Aether” but some famous theoretical physicist said it “wasn’t needed” and thus that was translated into “not existing”. Space is congested with electromagnetic radiation dispersed in every possible direction form countless sources; including the one that started the expansion (MBR). All this radiation floods our universe with wave interference that form a type of structure or fabric to space. There are two forms of domains of interference formed for each set of peak and trough of a wave; constructive and destructive interference. These spatial domains form pairs consisting of high and low rotating spatial density. Many call the trough domain the ground state; this scenario is like saying space is made up of an aggregate of positive and negative Higgs Bosons; each domain being a +/- HB. Thus far these domains have not been sustained long enough to be measured or observed. Now you need to ask yourself what went through the slits; the wave or the Boson/photon? They’re both the same but they can be interpreted as different. Why do you think that photons are described as polarized pairs?

I hope you don’t think I’m being too critical but I view scenarios like your Flat-lander, string theory, and some QM interpretations as simply an excuse to avoid saying “I don’t know”. Even some of us in the business are finding it harder to tell the difference between the brainstorming theories and the empirically based reality that science philosophy is supposed to be base on. It’s quite saddening to me to watch science being dragged into the quagmires of academic dogma just to be followed by the masses of innocent neophytes.

I like the free thinking spirit of you and Felix; I’m sure you will succeed with your quest.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by dleviwing These spatial domains form pairs consisting of high and low rotating spatial density. Many call the trough domain the ground state; this scenario is like saying space is made up of an aggregate of positive and negative Higgs Bosons; each domain being a +/- HB. Thus far these domains have not been sustained long enough to be measured or observed. Now you need to ask yourself what went through the slits; the wave or the Boson/photon? They’re both the same but they can be interpreted as different. Why do you think that photons are described as polarized pairs?

Hi David

I followed (and agreed) with most of that up to the point where you brought in the Higgs Boson. My feeling is that the LHC will not find the HB or the graviton as, whilst they do exist, it is not as normal matter. My own version of the TOE has gravitons as the connections and the HBs as the nodes of the fabric of spacetime/aether. Neither are actually bosons. Your vibration is carried, therefore, by the network of gravitons. To me this seems much more likely as it links QM directly with GR in a simple logical (and some say naive) way.

But where do the positive and negative Higgs Bosons come from - I've not heard of that?

Felix

PS - the wave went through the two slits and the photon/particle collapsed on the screen behind

PPS - I'm looking for a particle with a charge of +2. Any ideas?

[Wick]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger I can't comment much on your TOE because I don't understand it, in particular the concept of the hyperplane.

A hyperplane is the entire universal configuration of all matter and space in the universe at a given moment in time--a sort of three dimensional freeze frame that holds the locations and relationships of all things in that moment. NOTE: My concept of a hyperplane differs from this one. I'm providing this as background.

We could label a hyperplane T and say this is the configuration of the universe an the moment of the Big Bang. T+1 would represent the universal configuration of all things in the moment directly after the Big Bang. T+2 the one after that, and so on. All hyperplanes exist at once (from the big bang through the infinite expansion of the universe.

In spacetime, these hyperplane configurations are not simple mathematical abstractions. They are real. They represent the fabric of spacetime. The moment of the big bang still exists as the bottom-most layer of a stratified universe. The present is not a hyperplane, but it is the way conscious beings perceive the hyperplanes, how they comprehend them.

All future moments exist as hyperplanes above us in the universal strata. This is where Einstein's strict determinism reveals itself with a vengeance. What you eat for lunch tomorrow has already been decided by the universe. Tomorrow you will begin to perceive those hyperplanes that comprise lunchtime and you will think you want a tuna fish sandwich, but the universe prepared the tuna fish sandwich (and your desire to eat it) from the very start.

I find these stratified and static hyperplanes an overly complicated model. Such a model does not reflect the efficiency nor the simplicity which seem to be nature's hallmark. I also have a philosophical aversion to such a model. I believe that conscious beings are both free to act and responsible for their actions. Neither Einstein's nor Newton's models permit such freedom and accountability.

My theory in a nutshell is that instead of living in a stratified and static universe of infinite hyperplanes, we live on a single, dynamic, reconfiguring hyperplane. The reason the hyperplane reconfigures is because the light and fundamental matter (both 4d entities) interact on the surface of the hyperplane as it moves.

I'm a great fan of Lee Smolin and wrote to him after reading 'The Trouble with Physics'. He has a big problem with string theory and its use of resources and a preoccupation with background dependency which he worries about continually. Time is not the problem - it's trying to explain the structure of reality without a background - once this is introduced things become a lot simpler. There's a very similar book (but much harder to read) by Peter Woit titled 'Not Even Wrong'.

In my theory, light is the background and it is at relative rest. Light exists in a fourth spatial dimension. The hyperplane moves against this background in such a way that observers in the hyperplane perceive light in motion when in fact it is they and the hyperplane which are moving. I read Peter Woit's book and enjoyed it very much (what I didn't understand will have to wait for a second or third reading). Many of the concepts he presents illuminated aspects of my theory.

Certainly time is not a spatial dimension so it comes down to your definition of a 'dimension'. If 'degree of freedom' is used instead then it's easier to see time in context and also to see where string theory's extra dimensions might make sense.

Degree of freedom is, indeed, what I am after--but not a degree of freedom limited only to particles of light or matter. I'm looking for a degree of freedom that persists as things get bigger. All current theories move toward a kind of determinism as objects get larger.

As for string theories extra dimensions: They remind me of Ptolemy's crystal spheres. Two thousand years ago, when we didn't understand why the planets moved the way they did, we imposed symmetry on the heavens and assigned each heavenly body and the Dome of Fixed Stars to their own respective crystal sphere. We insisted the earth was at rest in the center of these nesting spheres of glass. This model led to a number of eccentric number values that had to be inserted to make planetary motion come out right. Back then they called these numbers epicycles, equants and deferents. Thanks to Copernicus and Kepler (and the realization that the universe is not as symmetrical as we thought) we were able to get past

Today we don't understand the "motion" of the quanta, so some of us are suggesting that there are seven calabi yau manifolds (read crystal spheres) upon which strings perform their quantum dance. Symmetry plays an important role in the choreography.

We got to this supposition because we assume that the universe is central (contains all things) and static (Expansion doesn't count, given the nature of spacetime). I am suggesting that resolution to the eccentrics in quantum mechanics will only be manifested to us if we reach beyond the Ptolemaic notion that the universe is central and static. The universe moves through 4-space (just as a planet moves through 3-space). I think this perspective will answer many questions about the nature of the quanta and their behavior.

Doctor Johnson once said "I'm sorry this letter is so long but I didn't have time to write a short one."

Apparently, neither do I!!!

[Wick]

Originally Posted by dleviwing If we say light is a wave then we need to explain what is vibrating. Space has been defined as an entity called “spacetime” that can distort and thus also vibrate; we used to call it “Aether” but some famous theoretical physicist said it “wasn’t needed” and thus that was translated into “not existing”. Space is congested with electromagnetic radiation dispersed in every possible direction form countless sources; including the one that started the expansion (MBR). All this radiation floods our universe with wave interference that form a type of structure or fabric to space.

Thanks for bringing us back to the subject of light, dleviwing. I can accept everything you have written above. In my theory, I would call this thing that distorts and vibrates "the hyperplane". It is an aether and it is absolutely necessary. If my theory is hogwash (quite possible!), spacetime makes a good aether as well.

One more clarification from my theory's perspective MBR and all other electromagnetic activity exists as a field that fills the immensity of space. That field holds a value at every point in space. I think you would agree with that. My theory interpretes this field as a 3-d cross-section of a 4-d phenomenon that fills the much more immense 4-space.

There are two forms of domains of interference formed for each set of peak and trough of a wave; constructive and destructive interference. These spatial domains form pairs consisting of high and low rotating spatial density. Many call the trough domain the ground state; this scenario is like saying space is made up of an aggregate of positive and negative Higgs Bosons; each domain being a +/- HB. Thus far these domains have not been sustained long enough to be measured or observed.

You lost me here. We were talking about light and now we're talking about the Higgs. Please explain this more. I know of the Higgs and that it hasn't been observed yet, but how does it fit in with what your trying to show us?

Now you need to ask yourself what went through the slits; the wave or the Boson/photon? They’re both the same but they can be interpreted as different. Why do you think that photons are described as polarized pairs?

I'm still fuzzy here. In my theory light is neither absorbed nor emitted. It passes through the hyperplane and causes the hyperplane to vibrate as it passes. Because light is a 4d phenomenon, it can enter the hyperplane moving in virtually any direction If the light enters the hyperplane at a place where matter is located, the matter filters the light and influences the way the hyperplane vibrates--to reveal color, coherence, polarization, etc.

I hope you don’t think I’m being too critical but I view scenarios like your Flat-lander, string theory, and some QM interpretations as simply an excuse to avoid saying “I don’t know”. Even some of us in the business are finding it harder to tell the difference between the brainstorming theories and the empirically based reality that science philosophy is supposed to be base on. It’s quite saddening to me to watch science being dragged into the quagmires of academic dogma just to be followed by the masses of innocent neophytes.

Dleviwing, you don't need to be apologetic. I trust you are listening to me with an open mind. I intend to do the same. If I had wanted someone to agree with me all the time, I certainly wouldn't have come to this forum (although I must admit this forum is friendlier to my ideas than the Physics Forum was! There I just got locked every time I posted!!)

I am passionate about my theory. The feeling I got at the moment it came to me in late February 2006 was most unusual. But that said, I am not yet a convert to it. I'll be the first to admit that "I don't know." But my human nature and curiosity force me to look for patterns in the chaos. My theory is an attempt to describe a pattern I see. The theory has a billion flaws, I know. Nobody, (who has kindly joined this thread) for instance, has helped me see the need to focus on the cause of the hyperplane's motion. While I knew this already, I have been forced to think about it and write about it. There is value in that. This theory needs more help than I have experience to give. I look to people like you to help me make the theory more honest (even if the theory never becomes correct or "true").

Copernicus put it this way:

"For I am not so enamored of my own opinions that I disregard what others may think of them. I am aware that a philosopher's ideas are not subject to the judgement of ordinary persons, because it is his endeavor to seek the truth in all things, to the extent permitted to human reason by God. Yet I hold that completely erroneous views should be shunned. Those who know that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest in the middle of the heaven as its center would, I reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves."

So I make the insane pronouncement that the universe moves. I am obliged to learn if this is a completely erroneous view or not. If I learn it is, I will shun it...but until then, I'll look to people like you to help me discover whether my idea has value.

I like the free thinking spirit of you and Felix; I’m sure you will succeed with your quest.

Thank you. But I don't know what success means in this regard. I'm more interested in the journey than arriving at a destination or accomplishing a task. Quests are nice, but sometimes they distract us from the beautiful things that happen along the way. Thanks for your insights!

Wick