Simply Relativity v2

[Max™]

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/morriss2.pdf

The other thread predates certain realizations I have had, and got derailed into a semi-advertisement for Farsight and his ideas.

So, I would like to close that, and try again, as I've still yet to get any sort of feedback or even a sign that anything has been read, much to my frustration.


So, again, I propose that Quantum Mechanics emerges naturally from the framework of General Relativity, as the inverse of time dilation effects.

I placed the point where this changeover occurs at the Planck Mass, and have been quite satisfied with this so far.

The interactions which are currently attributed to wave functions, akin to extended spatial aspects of particles, could also be attributed to extended temporal interactions.

The Quantum Uncertainty described by Heisenberg would be a direct result of the inability to observe the entire temporal extent of a particle.


From these rather unorthodox conclusions, I was led to a description of matter as folded spatial coordinates, gravity as a stretching of local coordinates due to the more compact nature of the folded sets, and tied the interaction with time to that folded nature as well.

Interestingly I've made my first prediction elsewhere, which is that the LHC will find evidence of Dark Matter, not the Higgs Boson.

[neutralino]

What's the mass of your predicted dark matter particle? It's not good enough, when intending to use data from an experiment such as the LHC or when trying to verify a theory, to just say the mass will be "slightly more than that of a neutron": you need to give specific values.

[Max™]

First, thanks for reading, did anything stand out, any suggestions on placing or whatnot.

I'm still kind of readjusting it, got rid of the big opening speech to make it more approachable.



I want to get it all as exact as possible.

Believe me, I am very aware that saying "you'll find this" and "you'll find this, with this mass, this interaction, this half life".

Problem was, I LITERALLY was just scribbling on a piece of paper this morning and realised from the loops I had made, that I knew why we get the familiar particle familes we do, and that the lowest stable particle I couldn't identify would have to be dark matter, a Photino.

Gotta check a bit, but I will be sussing it out, ideally some time tomorrow.

[Max™]

Still working out what the mass will be, I made a mistake and used the wrong loop for an electron.

So far, I'm thinking the photino will be very close to the mass of a hydrogen atom.

[Max™]

I've had an interesting thought about this dark matter particle, which I am tentatively
calling the Photino. I believe this particle will be a tetraquark, duud, with a mass
of roughly 1.25 GeV, 0 Charge (1/3, 2/3, -2/3, -1/3), 0 Spin (-½, ½, ½, -½),
fulfilling the role of dark matter very well.

I posted this elsewhere, but well, it fits here too, as it was specifically asked about.

[Max™]

Decided to attempt to better display the folding and twisting aspects.



Pardon the crummy mspaint lines, it gets the idea across, but that damnable double click to set a curve drives me nuts sometimes.

[AntonioLao]

Max™,
Read 'Simply Relativity'. I had the same perspective as when I read 'Meaning of Relativity' but for the latter I knew what I was missing while for the former I have no idea what I was missing. If I understood correctly, your implication is that QM is derived from GR but that is the crux of the matter. No theorists claim that not in loop quantum gravity or superstring, or any other theories of gravity. I don't think the two people you mentioned ever wrote a paper on the unification of gravity and QM.

[Max™]

They didn't, they wrote papers about certain aspects of the universe which I discovered independently while pondering my temporal interaction idea.

Of course no one seriously suggests a theory like this, you have to give up the notion of absolute causality to do so.

I have looked all over the place for others who have suggested this idea. I find half-hearted suggestions about it, which are disregarded as pathological, or paradoxes.

A time loop would only be paradoxical if it was not self consistent.

Current theories are approaching the GR/QM unification from the assumption that the quantum paradigm is the most accurate, and that you should be able to describe GR from a quantum model.

I simply went about it the other way, as GR is a very natural concept to me (I first started reading about SR/GR when I was 6 years old, a couple decades ago), and I found I understand what Einstein didn't like about the direction quantum mechanics went in.

People often forget that Einstein was one of the early proponents of the theory, but when it moved to the probabilistic non-local form, that is when something in Einstein's mind said it didn't feel right.

I think the only reason Einstein never seriously suggested this idea I have, is because he wanted to preserve locality AND causality.

[AntonioLao]

If we start with the assumption that there is absolute causality then we can start to formulate a background independence theory. What Einstein believed is that absolute motion is not detectable or measureable since measurements are background dependence. But general relativity is true if and only if a principle of covariance and a principle of equivalence exist. By these mean that any physical equations is coordinate independence and that the gravity mass and the inertial mass are equivalent by Mach principle. The hint from GR is that the absoluteness can be found in the existence of absolute acceleration suggesting that infinitesimal primary repulsive forces exist in order to keep the space-time fabric from collapsing into itself back to the singularity.

[Max™]

Indeed, I know this.

You keep doing that, I didn't come up with this idea at random, I picked a book up off a shelf in my parents room when I was 6 years old.

Black Holes and Warped Spacetime. by William J. Kaufman, and I started reading. I moved on to encyclopedias, library texts, the internet information sources when they came to my knowledge.

Been studying quantum theory for roughly half as long, a good 10~12 years or so.

I may not have a PhD, but I am well versed in the subjects.