Hi Robert,
thank you for explaining. I'm going to have to get my head around that. I think I understand what you mean. A big galaxy might have a big hydrogen atom and a self similar small galaxy might have a small hydrogen atom. ? - You are right the absolute scale is an assumption. I had never really thought about that before. So your plan to get people thinking is working!
Actually things are a little different in a discrete fractal hierarchy with exact self-similarity.
Galaxies correspond to subatomic particles: nuclei and particles shortly after a supernova explosion [the "big bang"] in an object on the Scale just above the Galactic Scale. Galaxies are very compact (relative to their Scale), move at high velocities (100-700 km/sec) and are part of a global expansion.
Galaxies contain pulsars. Pulsars contain subatomic nuclei.
Galaxies, pulsars and nuclei are the exact same thing on different cosmological Scales, so long as you carefully use their physical characteristics to make sure you have identified specific analogues (say an alpha particle from each Scale).
Don't worry - learning a completely different way to understand nature takes some time. But once you work at it a bit the insights and understanding come increasingly fast.
The degree of unification offered by Discrete Scale Relativity vastly exceeds anything that has come before.
RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
Thanks again for taking the time to explain. It is something I will have to think about to really understand what you are saying.
To gain a working understanding of Discrete Scale Relativity and the new fractal cosmological paradigm, one needs to read 2 papers.
These papers are Papers #1 and #2 at the "Selected Papers" page of
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
They go through the technicalities, retrodictions and predictions of the paradigm.
What is meant by a "cosmological Scale" is defined using the Atomic Scale as the archetypal and best known example.
The self-similar scaling equations and how to use them can be found in these papers.
After mastering the material in these 2 papers, one becomes a leading expert in Discrete Scale Relativity, since virtually all the members of the physics community have ignored this new paradigm for 35 years and remain clueless about it. :)
When the dark matter is identified, I expect that DSR's definitive predictions of its mass spectrum will be vindicated and the barrenness of the old paradigms of particle physics and cosmology will be revealed for all to see. The 40-year No-Show for "WIMPs" is a preview.
RLO
DSR
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Robert
I like your idea that the scale of things is highly stratified. I realise your concept is primarily directed at the cosmology side of the scale, but I can see the relevance to the tiny scale. If there were scale effects -from whatever cause- then there could be discontinuities in the manifestation of the physics. Which in turn could explain why quantum coherence does not apply to living cats, for example.
Thank you
Dirk
Hi Dirk,
Assuming that Discrete Scale Relativity applies only in the cosmological realm is not correct. It applies to ..., Subquantum, Atomic, Stellar, Galactic, ..., Scales. It unifies the physics of all scales of nature.
-----------------------------------------------
7/18 "manifesto" from nature online:
String theory has failed to even generate a single definitive prediction after 44 years of hype.
SUSY promises much, but nature (via LHC, Tevatron, etc) says: "No, no, no".
The more you objectively study the "Higgs Mechanism" the more it sounds like it was cribbed off the back of a cereal box. Expect multiple additional epicycles to keep the thing floating.
The standard model has 7 serious problems that clearly show that it is purely heuristic model-building.
Conclusion: We need to start over with a new paradigm for the 21st century. New ideas from a new generation of theoretical physicists. Trying to patch up the old paradigms of cosmology and particle physics is just going to keep us wandering in the desert for another 40 years.
The new paradigm will almost certainly be based around the discrete cosmological self-similarity of Discrete Scale Relativity.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Fractal Cosmology
ADDENDUM:
If you cannot resolve the vacuum energy density crisis,
if you cannot explain the fine structure constant,
if you cannot identify the dark matter,
if you cannot predict the masses of fundamental particles,
if you cannot reconcile General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics,
if you cannot explain why galaxies exist, or come in radically different flavors like ellipticals and spirals,
then you do not know diddly-squat about the cosmos.
Particle physicists seem to be making it up as they go. Here's a nice example: They could not find a single free quark, so they made it a "law" that quarks are hidden inside other particles (just so!).
It's mainly Ptolemaic epicycles in theoretical particle physics, no matter how vociferously they sell it to a credulous public.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Hi,Robert
Are you familiar with this book?
http://www.amazon.com/Scale-Relativity-And-Fractal-Space-Time/dp/1848166508
Your point of view close to Spinoza's philosophy a religion of nature.Nature - is the cause of itself(Causa sui).He was the closest in their outlook for the Einstein.
Hi Yuri,
Yes, I am quite aware of all of Nottale's work.
Whereas I applaud many parts of his general outlook and his call for a fractal model of nature, I find the following problems with his proposed paradigm.
1. Nottale assumes that there are upper and lower limits to nature's hierarchy.
2. Nottale accepts the conventional scaling for gravitation and believes in the conventional Planck scale.
3. Nottale downplays the crucial role that dark matter plays in cosmology.
My research suggests that each of these assumptions is profoundly wrong, especially #1.
His Scale Relativity may apply within any single given discrete cosmological Scale of nature's hierarchy, but I seriously doubt that it is the correct fractal paradigm for the entire infinite and eternal hierarchy.
I have been a great admirer of Spinoza since I was made aware of his work by the work of Einstein.
I firmly believe that Spinoza has given humanity the final word on the true identity of "God", although very few seem to agree with Spinoza, Goethe and Einstein that the infinite eternal hierarchical Universe, with its elegant laws, principles and symmetries, is all in all.
God = Nature = everything natural and nothing supernatural.
If others need a more anthropomorphic God, let them believe what they will. I would only argue that they are selling God short, in fact infinitely short.
Robert
You can read my posts in essay of Philip Giibbs.
Robert
There are all my observations.
http://vixra.org/author/yuri_danoyan
My be you can catch some intersection with your interest?
Dear Robert,
I totally agree with you on questioning the 3 assumptions as given in the abstract, but for different reasons from your self-similar cosmology where I can see how they would be refuted. Just taking the idea seriously that the metric-field equations of General Relativity describe a closed physical surface of space-time is enough to question whether the 'constants' are really constant in an absolute sense. For a closed universe with radius R, physical analysis leads to the conclusion that the cosmological constant must depend upon R, and that GR formulated on a local basis could have a gravitational constant dependent upon R. Given that 2 of the 3 'constants' would then vary with the radius R of the universe, the suspicion would be that the speed of light would also vary with R, which would obviously effect conclusions from astronomic observations if correct. Assumption 1 being wrong - ticked.
Of course in GR, the scale R is not physically defined in a properly measurable sense and extensions to GR by adding extra dimensions can inherent this feature, as my Kaluza-Klein theory does. In a KKT like mine the compactified dimensions have the Planck scale L and the physical scale of the universe is then physically defined in units of L, ie. R/L is a physical quantity. But then L is only measurable in terms of itself, and so L is not an absolute physical scale. Assumption 3 being wrong - ticked. I understand that you don't like such cosmological models with upper and lower length scales.
For me, assumption 2 is wrong because the last step down in scale is blocked by mathematical incompleteness and so reductionism fails for this reason. Although this refutation of the 3 assumptions is different from yours, the key can also be viewed as being a reassessment of scaling in GR.
Best wishes,
Michael
Hi Michael,
For many years I have tried to interest people in the possibility that G is not an absolute constant, but rather has an infinite series of discrete values - one for each cosmological Scale (i.e., ..., Subquantum, Atomic, Stellar, Galactic, Metagalactic, ...).
Two relevant points are:
1. Einstein put the conventional Newtonian G into GR because it gave the right answers for the macrocosm. However, nothing in GR requires that the value of G be the absolute conventional Newtonian value.
2. If one seriously considers the possibility that G is not absolute, but rather has a infinite series of discrete values - one for each self-similar cosmological Scale (i.e., ..., Subquantum, Atomic, Stellar, Galactic, Metagalactic, ...), then one has the makings of a new discrete self-similar paradigm for understanding nature on all Scales in a highly unified and elegant manner.
Maybe if Discrete Scale Relativity's definitive predictions concerning the exact mass spectrum of the galactic dark matter are verified (say, by the NuSTAR X-ray telescope), then those who have studiously ignored this new paradigm for over 3 decades will be inclined to learn about its true potential.
Best,
Rob O
Robert
I also checked out your website, the fractal model is very close to the one I have explored and describe, developed from astronomy as well as physics. The form is based on the same toroidal (nuclear tokamak) form and also discussed in last years essay (2020 Vision).
The scale also includes each universe, consistent with CMBR anisotropy, it's helical resolution, and the 'axis of evil' equivalent to AGN/quasar jets, as described here; Feb 2011 Helical CMBR Asymmetry, Pre-Big Bang State, Dark Matter and the Axis of Evil. http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016
The form gives multiple spin axis. At the lowest scale is the fundamental twin vortex, again forming the toroid. I will get back to your website. in the meantinme I hope you may read my own essay and comment, the aspect considered showing how Relativity and QM may be one.
Thanks, and best regards
Peter.
Hello Peter,
Does you research lead to any definitive predictions?
These are traditional scientific predictions that are made prior to testing, feasibly tested, quantitative, non-adjustable (i.e., non-fudgable), and unique to the theory being tested.
Robert
A bit of an embarrassment of novel predictions arose, even before the research, which was mainly trying to falsify the conceptual ontology by proving some of the seemingly ridiculous predictions wrong.
I remember the very first one (of scores) well. It was that 'lensing' delays, from the first 2 nanosecond delay found by Shapiro radar ranging Venus near the sun, would be anomalously greater by perversely many magnitudes, even up to many years!!. In fact Shapiro also had to be wrong. Dirty washing is not done in public and it took some digging. I actually gave up and looked at other novel predictions, but they checked out so I returned (with help).
In a nutshell; Shapiro had lied to support SR (sponsored by the US army), was found out by Dicke and backed out of a lead talk (5th Texas Symposeum). Wallis publicised his deception but was suppressed and most official records disappeared. But the real results emerged and were analysed, showing massive 'refractive effects' had been subtracted to leave; ..well I never!, a tiny amount as the (wrongly interpreted) SR prediction. All papers with any truth only emerged in secondary journals, i.e. Evans, J. V., R. P. Ingalls, 1968: Absorption of Radar Signals by the Atmosphere of Venus. J. Atmos. Sci., 25, 555-559. doi: 10.1175/1520-0469 (1968) 0252.0.CO;2
Doing the same experiment on Jupiter shortly after this caused massive controversy, also suppressed as the results appeared to violate SR. Again buried, but traces with hints can be found. i.e. Kopeikin S.M. The Measurement of the Light Deflection from Jupiter: Theoretical Interpretation 2003. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302462
But now the big finds. The Belgians were told they were stupid when someone matched some spectroscopy readouts from Borud from the wrong year. Eventually they couldn't be denied, but did not match any theory, until another patch, 'gravity well' extensions with ,caustics' was put over it (light round one side of a cluster gets lost down a (wishful thinking?) 'well' for a year on the way here.
Then the biggest one to date Abell. Over 3 years delay. It was first dismissed as nonsense and astronomers expressing surprise in public were censored. But it's been confirmed, and consistent with the well known kinetic Sunyaev Zeldovitch effect and later kinetic findings including by my own (RAS) president, but which could not be assimilated into theory. Esentially, light being passed through the edge of a galaxy rotating towards us does so at c wrt the halo so arrives earlier, and also curved by diffraction. This solves scores of the biggest issues and anomalies in astronomy, and beyond. Re-ionization, dwarf galaxies, intrinsic rotation, the barycentric frame and celestial plane (see USNO Circular 179 p6; "there is as yet no consistent relativistic theoretical basis....etc.), ad infinitum.
But of course it is both too obvious and far too unfamiliar, and requires 'dynamic visualisation' skills we haven't developed as we rely totally on maths (1 flawed input = total wrong output). In fact the DFM proves the SR postulates, with Local Reality, and derives them directly from a quantum mechanism. I'm no mathematician, and trust logic more than maths, but see my end notes for the basic transform equations.
And when we start ;looking into optics there are just as many, perhaps more, novel predictions and 'poorly understood' jigsaw pieces that suddenly all fit together in the Discrete Field Model 4D ontological construction perfectly. Just try to explain the likes of Fraunhofer radiation and Non Linear Optics effects without it.
So the short answer is; Yes. But I'm not sure what good it will do as all physicists are taught otherwise. If you have a pet wish to put through the sausage machine give it a try, Pre big bang conditions perhaps? Black Holes? Infinities? CMB anisotropy? The shape of fractals?
The questions we can't yet get it to answer are; 1. Is it a good idea that we know all this yet? And; 2. How do we make some parts of humankind intelligent enough to explain it to others in a way they might be able to assimilate. Reviewers certainly seem terrified of it! and with so many crackpot ideas around who can blame them. We are very few. Any ideas or help is very welcome.
Best wishes
Peter
Robert
Sorry, the list runs to almost 5 pages. It seems you may not count that as succinct.
I hadn't realised pseudo-science had taken over. Am I too late?
It also predicts that starlight passing through the ionosphere will refracted to c in the (non rotating) ECI frame, then when passing into the atmosphere will change speed to do c/n in the rotating ECRF, thus producing scintillation, ellipticity, scattering, and the need for the addition of a significant refractive component of