A Recap of Motivations
a recap of motivations
For those who missed my several papers citing relevant references, let's recap them so it's absolutely clear there are solid motivations for 'spacelet theory', an engineering approach toward modeling elementary particles and interactions.
Guillaume Adenier disproved Bell's theorem allowing local realistic models to be considered to explain quantum phenomena.
GR, a cornerstone of modern physics, asserts spacetime is bent/distorted by gravitating bodies.
Bernard Shutz, director of the Astrophysical Relativity Department of the Max Planck Institute, has understood gravitation may be viewed as curved time only [emphasis mine –DEM].
Engineers have always known two facts:
- any media must have elasticity to stretch/deform
- any media must have impedance to impede electromagnetic waves
- And so, spacetime/time must possess elasticity and impedance.
- This is no mystery to engineers: they identify 'the impedance of space' as approximately 377 ohms derivable from the 'ideal transmission line' POV.
- Similarly, 'the elasticity of space' can be calculated and is around 1022 newtons.
- But as implied above, the simpler theory (as preferred by Occam) is that these attributes are associated with time alone, leaving space to be Euclidean and flat.
- It is well known wavelets provide one of the most powerful techniques for analyzing complex data; as i write, wavelets are literally transforming science and engineering.
- What perhaps is not so well known is that there is an 'uncertainty principle' associated with wavelet theory; this 'wavelet uncertainty principle' bears alarming resemblance to Heisenberg's.
- We may take this as coincidence with no relevance to quantum physics..
- Or we may take this 'coincidence' as a hint about elementary particles..
Some may view this 'chain of logic' above as pure speculation embodying 'fringe' ideas.. But the sequence above may lead to the simplest, deepest, most appropriate and profound view of matter/energy since Einstein's famous equation.. Spacelet, spacetime wavelet, theory may be the 'paradigm shift' required in physics to achieve 'unification' (the quest to unify forces of nature in a coherent and consistent framework). The beauty of this perspective should be immediately obvious: we do it all in 3D+1 dimensions.
Another 'bonus' in this framework is that electromagnetism must be mediated by something real, something identifiable, something precisely describable in terms of spacelets: charged antiphotons. The exact properties and shapes must be worked out but preliminary indicators are encouraging. The motivation for proposing something so ludicrous sounding is not simply the need for something real to mediate e-m; we need to consider what may be the core principle in our universe: conservation of curvature.
Why do we 'need' this principle? Very simple and practical: we observe spacetime to be flat (or very nearly so) and so any physical processes (such as nuclear fusion or fission) must preserve this 'flatness'. Otherwise, we would observe the curvature of our universe to change over time.. So from observations of curvature alone, we deduce this core principle: curvature conservation.
All nuclear reactions (and more) must obey this principle: fusion, fission, pair-production, and perhaps most importantly – photon absorption/emission. Every time a photon is created/destroyed/absorbed/emitted, so must an antiphoton. If photons have very slight positive temporal curvature, then antiphotons must have very slight negative temporal curvature. This is NOT negative energy; it is opposites in temporal curvature. To visualize this, we know time slows down near massive bodies.. We identify this as positive temporal curvature. Near antimatter, time speeds up (NOT reversed time as Dirac proposed) .. So this framework is fully deterministic, local, and REAL.
.. The problems with conventional approaches toward quantum mechanics is that they're explicitly UNREAL, non-local, and inherently random. This is essentially why they will never develop an accurate model of gravitation based on virtual exchange; “nature don't operate that way”.
Einstein's dream was to find a coherent and consistent framework (from a realistic POV) to describe quantum phenomena but he was at a disadvantage in his time: wavelet theory had not been developed and physics was pulling away from 'the aether' as a description of space. So anything currently resembling 'the aether' (such as 'the impedance of space') is currently automatically rejected by convention as 'sheer nonsense'. This is an example of the 'politics of science' NOT science.
A true scientist considers things objectively, even-handedly, and unbiased-ly. A true scientist does not dismiss based on “sounds like the aether to me”.. A true scientist will consider viable alternatives.
Spacelet theory, admittedly in its infancy, combined with the conservation of curvature principle, may be the simplest most realistic framework possible and we automatically reject it 'cuz it “sounds like the aether to me”? That don't float in my boat.
After 100 years, let's get real physics and fulfill Einstein's dream.
.. A presentation scheduled for August 6th will be delivered to the Natural Philosophy Alliance by sam micheal aka sam iam. The website announcing upcoming presentations is here:
Please attend and be a part positive change.
Continue reading at NowPublic.com: a recap of motivations | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/health/recap-motivations#ixzz1gVc8u3Y2