Yes, it's a big deal!
The Nature of the Wave Function by Edwin Eugene Klingman
[deleted]
Hi Edwin,
Thank you for sharing your essay. Your thoughts flowed nicely from one step to the next, and so the essay was very easy to follow. I was reading the comments above, about that experiment pertaining to your essay, and I hope it all works out for you. :)
There are so many great idea-filled comments here, left by so many people. I have to read them all again. This is very illuminating.
Take care.
- Shawn
Dear Shawn,
Thank you for reading and commenting. I have truly enjoyed your comments on other threads and am very happy that you found my essay and associated comments of interest. As you note, there are many thoughtful comments here.
I have also noted elsewhere that I would like to drink whatever you guys are drinking in Saskatoon!
Edwin Eugene Klingman
[deleted]
Thank you Edwin, it's very nice to feel included. My knowledge is pretty spotty, and I'm having trouble understanding a lot of the essays, but so far most people have been open to discussing and explaining things. I just want to make it clear that I am not a professional physicist, and that my essay and my comments should probably not be taken extremely seriously. I just figured that since there was an invitation to lay out some assumptions, guilt-free, then why not try. I am so glad that all of these other people accepted the invitation too.
I don't know if there's anything particularly special about the water up here in these parts, but you're more than welcome to come experience them for yourself any time (just bring an ice auger if it's in January). :)
Shawn, if by 'professional' you mean that one gets paid for doing physics, then be thankful. Those whose livelihood depends on being a member of the guild are very constrained, whether they admit it or not, to following the party line. Those of us who never or no longer depend on money connected to our physics are not so constrained. There are other constraints (being called 'crackpot', etc) but these are of a lesser sort. Of course this does not imply that non-professionals are any more likely to be correct than professionals, but they can look for truth in a larger field.
I am glad so many accepted the invitation as well.
[deleted]
Hi Edwin,
I definitely know what you mean about the status quo being a hindrance, and I admire you for taking your education and skills somewhere that deviates from the beaten path. It's definitely inspirational. I take an extremely long time to learn new things (as you could probably tell in Lorraine's thread), which I think is probably my biggest constraint to being any kind of physicist. :) I learned quite a bit in that thread though, and here too, and I've now got a lot of reading to do tonight, which is a good way to pass the time.
[deleted]
Edwin,
Your comment of Sep. 5, 2012 @ 22:18 GMT in topic 1526 (Sara Walker):"Frank, I have postulated that it is the C-field or gravito-magnetic field that is responsible for the left-handed-only neutrinos, W and Z bosons, and even the left-handed biological molecules."
In your essay, you mention gravito-electric in the last paragraph on page 2, and state it has a dimension of 1/t, which describes a duration, typically referred to as frequency.
There is plenty of evidence that there is a lot of spiral activity and left-hand bias in nature.Not Just Another Old Flame I cited the Whyte "Chirality" article in an earlier in an earlier comment.
Two papers were published by Queen Mary, University of London people in 2004 linkiing EM to Gravity.
Newton's Gravitation Constant G as a Quantum Coupling Constant
Dear Frank,
I agree that there is a left-handed bias in Nature, and I do attribute it to the C-field as you noted. I will read the articles you linked to and then make a more extensive comment. I also noticed that you left two previous remarks but I only responded to one. I will remedy this also.
Thanks again for the comments and the links.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
[deleted]
Edwin,
Everybody can relax now, a couple of mathematicians have identified how gravity works. All they had to do was add dark energy and dark matter with the proper definitions.
"Third, this scalar potential energy density should be viewed as the main cause for the non-homogeneous distribution of the matter/galaxies in the universe, as the dark matter (negative scalar potential energy) attracts and dark energy (positive scalar potential energy) repels different galaxies; see (1.9) below."
Gravitational Field Equations and Theory of Dark Energy and Dark Matter
The final sentence in the report states: "Consequently, when there is no normal matter present (with T = 0), the curvature R of space-time is balanced by R = Phi. Therefore, there is no real vacuum in the universe."
Dear Frank Makinson,
According to your next comment below, I haven't relaxed yet! I'll look at the paper, but I'm not a great fan of scalar fields. And while it's not impossible that mathematicians will solve the physics problem, I don't see much of that happening these days.
This response is to your above comment... I found the NASA note on spiraling flames fascinating, and pretty much what I would expect, but there doesn't seem to be enough info there to confirm that the spiral is left-handed. And some of the links were dead.
The Gilson paper presented some interesting ratios and several times referenced "an electromagnetic theory of gravity". It may seem a small point, but I prefer a "gravity-based theory of electromagnetism", as my model postulates a 'free lunch' universe in which the kinetic energy of the out-flowing field exactly balances the negative energy of gravitational attraction, resulting in no net energy required at Creation. Not until symmetry breaks does electromagnetism enter the picture (along with the preferred C-field handedness). In fact, as I noted in my previous FQXi essay, until symmetry breaks the primordial field is scale-invariant, hence motion-invariant, and thus there is no meaningful [i.e., measurable] definition of time. Up to this point all C-field circulation is effectively 'suppressed'. When symmetry breaks C-field vortices appear [left-handed] and these can be conceived of as the first 'clocks' [cyclical phenomena] in the universe. Note that they all run 'one-way'; time is NOT symmetrical. The vortices, by a process I've described elsewhere many times, then effectively 'condense' into particles, which, in motion, induce their own C-field circulation and this is the wave function I describe in my current essay.
Ross' paper "Electrifying Gravity" attempts to derive the gravitational constant from the electrostatic force in relation to the mass of the electron and proton. And on the first page he states: "If therefore gravity and the electrostatic force are the same force at different strengths." I do not see how this could be so, as gravity interacts with mass and hence with it's own self-energy, whereas the electric field interacts with charge, but is itself uncharged, and therefore cannot interact with itself. He presents so many formulas and constants it's not surprising he finds some coincidences, but the key is in his last paragraph, where he states he has very little knowledge of math or physics.
The last topic I'd like to treat is from your earlier comment, [Aug 16, 2012 @ 11:18]. I regret over looking it and now find a little gem in it. I'll answer inline following your comment above.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dear Frank Makinson,
I regret overlooking this comment for so long. In particular, I find very interesting your comment:
"It is known that unspecified length sizes can be used to establish the structure of geometric forms. By defining one geometric form in terms that represent wavelength, and another identical form shape in terms that represent frequency, it was possible to identify the size of a unit wavelength and the size of a unit of frequency without needing to know their physical sizes previously. The size of the duration of a "unit of time" was mutually defined by the relationship."
I would be interested in more information on this point.
Best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
[deleted]
Edwin,
Ref: "A methodology to define physical constants using mathematical constants" July/August 2011 IEEE Potentials Volume: 30 Issue: 4 On page(s): 39 - 43, ISSN: 0278-6648 Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/MPOT.2011.940377
The "Methodology" applies mathematics to a physical law in a way that it has never been done before. The physical law is the relationship between wavelength and frequency, specifically electromagnetic waves. What I presented in the paper is not taught in the textbooks, thus I had to explain the process step by step, even though there is nothing in it mathematically beyond basic geometry, simple algebra and one trigonometric relationship.
IEEE no longer allows authors to post the published version anywhere; this applies to anything published after Jan. 1 2011. The link below provides a direct extraction of the postprint. It doesn't have the color image of Euclid with a tablet on the title page. The IEEE editors modified Euclids tablet by adding two right triangles to it, one labeled wavelength and the other frequency; nothing is changed in the text.
The duration of a unit of time is a function of the relationship between wavelength and frequency. Essentially, there is no need for time unless there is the presence of electromagnetic energy, and it is everywhere.
I know a few things about the triangle pair that I could not put in the published paper, but I knew mentioning them would cause controversy, and editors don't need much of an excuse to reject a paper. I did not have a Benefits section in the submitted paper, and I was asked to provide one. I was surprised the section was accepted verbatim as submitted, even my statement, "Having mathematically defined basic units of measure will make it desirable to have a separation between those units that are suitable for commerce and those best suited for scientific applications and discovery." I have received substantial flack, over the years, from individuals who think SI units are the best that can be achieved. SI base units, not being based upon fundamental physical constants, are one of the issues that has created the present crisis in physics, but no one had a solution. The Methodology is a solution. I am curious if the FQXi reviewers understand the significance of what the Methodology provides.
[deleted]
Edwin,
I want to point out a particular statement in the IEEE paper. In the Summary I stated, 'All electromagnetic waves have a consistent underlying "energy conditional", their velocity, regardless of their wavelength, which defines the spectral position of a particular emission. This energy conditional is the coincidence point, or reference, for all electromagnetic emissions. When the two fundamental units of measure, length and time, are defined in terms of this electromagnetic point of coincidence, the point can be used to express a unit of energy. The spectral energy of any particular electromagnetic emission then will be either higher or lower than that at the reference level.'
Does anybody in the scientific community even think about this EM "energy conditional?"
The energy conditional of EM waves was completely ignored by those that created the current SI definition for the meter and the second in 1983 (*see below). This is a carry-over from the French definition of the metre, as they were unaware of the existence of EM energy, nor did they know that light was an EM phenomenon. The French behavior can be excused slightly because they had "incomplete information" in the 1890s. But after it was identified that EM waves existed and light was an EM phenomenon, the French forced the "metre" on the scientific community world-wide in the late 1800s. The French action was inexcusable because it was not based upon "incomplete information." I noted Maxwell's objection in the closing paragraph of the Summary section.
* 1983 the CGPM replaced this latter definition by the following definition: " The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second."
[deleted]
Hi Edwin,
I've read through your essays now, and I can definitely see the appeal of having the dynamics pop out of asymmetry in the field. That seems to close any gap between the "data" and the "processor", and thus makes any spacetime-as-a-computer analogy inaccurate.
I also took a look at the FPGA programming articles on your website. Those were very informative, and a lot of fun to read. It's really interesting to me how the FPGA allows you to have variable logic tables. That must make for some very involved but fun programming. Yet again, my world view has been expanded. :)
- Shawn
[deleted]
Dear Edwin,
Thanks. Your approach definitely has earned a good score from me.
Hou Ying Yau
Dear Edwin,
I like your excellent essay and appreciate your novel viewpoint. I wish you good luck in the contest.
As you know, our community ratings will be used for selecting top 35 essays as 'Finalists' for further evaluation by a select panel of experts. There is a possibility of existence of a biased group which promotes the essays of that group by rating them all 'High' and jointly demotes some other essays by rating them all 'Low'. Therefore, any biased group should not be permitted to corner all top 'Finalists' positions for their select group.
In order to ensure fair play in this selection, each participants in this contest should select about 50 essays for entry in the finalists list and RATE them 'High'. Next they should select bottom 50 essays and rate them 'Low'. Remaining essays may be rated as usual, if time permits. If all the participants rate at least 100 essays this way then the negative influence of any bias group will certainly get mitigated.
You are requested to read and rate my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space".
Finally I wish to see your excellent essay reach the list of finalists.
Best Regards
G S Sandhu
[deleted]
Hi Edwin,
Does the C-field theory get rid of the possibility of super-extremal black hole electrons? (Jonathan mentioned this, I believe). Have you thought about what happens when a C-field vortex possesses more than the Planck energy? Does it split off into multiple vortices, or switch orientation, or something else? Have you thought about how to induce the other charges?
One thing I notice about a gravitational field is that there's generally a gradient involved, which provides an orientation that is orthogonal to the gradient. Is the left and right spin of the vortices based on this orientation?
- Shawn
Dear Shawn,
Great questions, and I really appreciate them. The problem with working alone is that one develops blind spots and these cause questions to be overlooked. That's bad, because answering questions is the way that we best teach ourselves.
First you ask about super extremal black holes [with electron charge and mass]. The radius of these is 10^-57 meters, while I assume ~10^-19 to 10^-18 meters, which gives me good numbers and agrees with experiment. So I believe these don't exist, for reasons related to your next question about high energy vortices.
I assume [haven't worked out exactly why yet] that all such vortices start with a finite [particle size?] radial arm or vortex radius. The dynamics predicted by the equations both produce a central dipole field and non-linearly shrink the radial arm toward zero. Conservation of angular momentum causes the wall to speed up [like the skater pulling in her arms] and, as explained above, I find no reason to assume such motion must remain subluminal. But there are reasons to believe special things happen when v reaches c. At this point a crucial separation occurs between the superluminal spinning 'tip' and the still subluminal vortex major, which 'snaps back' to continue shrinking. This 'vortex as boson' begins with far more energy than a fermion. So after spitting out one fermion, there's plenty of energy to do it again, in the other direction. This is the basis of the 'particle jets' seen at LHC, etc. This process is described in detail in The Chromodynamics War
You ask whether other vortices 'split off'. The superluminal vortex splits off from the subluminal vortex, and the superluminal stabilizes as a toroidal charged particle, characterized by mass, charge, and spin, and dense enough to induce a C-field ["bow wave"] wave function as described in my current essay. Thus energetic vortices spit out particles as long as enough energy remains, then finally decay to a [left-handed] neutrino. If you think about this process, it will produce all particles [essentially from various vortex 'vibration modes'] in quantity, but *not* higher and higher energy particles, and no 'super' particles. In other words, I predict that no matter how many colliders are built, there won't be new particles [but there may be new 'resonances']. The Standard Model particles are "it".
The vortex spin, according to the GR equation, is left-handed, and this is reflected in many things, cosmological, neutrinos, W and Z bosons, and even bio-molecules. I think it can even be related to the 'one-way' nature of time, since C-field vortices were the first 'clocks' in universe.
As for the gradient, I believe the gravity field is too weak [except at black holes?] to affect vortex orientation. Instead the colliding particles establish a rotational plane between them, and the C-field vortex rotates in this plane. Because all particles are essentially simply condensed stabilized C-field 'structured' energy, when two particles collide with sufficient energy the structural stability is overcome [the ice melts and water flows] and a new vortex is formed. This is why I predicted 'super fluid' while QCD was predicting 'quark gas' at the RHIC and LHC.
I hope this answers your questions. It's NOT the QCD picture [hence "War"] but it appears to answer very many questions QCD can't answer, and predicts all of the known particles [except the Higgs]. I think I can calculate all of the particle masses [I'm within 10% of the muon mass] which current science cannot do.
This comment in a way distracts from my essay, but since a few have found it appropriate to knock my score way down, I might as well use this opportunity to inform those who are interested. There is a possibility that all of the problems discussed in this contest may actually have an effect [dream on!]. It should be clear to all involved that what passes for orthodoxy is built on sandy soil.
Thanks again for your interest and your questions.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
[deleted]
Edwin,
Your response to Shawn "The problem with working alone is that one develops blind spots and these cause questions to be overlooked. That's bad, because answering questions is the way that we best teach ourselves.", applies to my situation also. Periodically, I express alternative ideas on various forums, this to learn about the type of counter arguments used. However, not being constantly immersed in an orthodox science environment (part of the choir), it is possible to examine alternative theories without being constantly exposed to disparaging comments or worse. Too much isolation can result in one being way off-base, and not realizing it.
I have been re-reading a few of the earlier essays that do not get many comments. Some promote what I term as "physics fiction", as least from what I know. More than one have a new approach to the Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment, first conducted in 1886. Once I keyed on the MM experiment, I looked for a specific mention of the assumption that the MM experiment was attempting to prove or disapprove.
Who established the assumption that the aether was a fixed attribute of the universe, and everything moved within it? From what I know currently, that assumption would be difficult to promote.
In 1885, H.Hertz demonstrated that electromagnetic (EM) fields propagate through the air. None of the scientists of that era, including Einstein, were aware that we are constantly bathed in EM fields from local planetary sources, solar system sources and cosmic sources, the later not identified until the 1930s.
I was an EE student at the Univ. of Iowa when Van Allen was building the first Explorer satellite instrument packages. One evening, on one of my trips to the physics building, where I had a part-time job repairing various equipment, I saw a group of individuals at a work bench, and one was wrapping a heavy lead sheet around a Geiger tube. I did not know why this was being done at that time. Later, I found out that empty space was less empty, vast belts of energetic particles were embraced by the earth's various influences, and this "material" is faithfully dragged wherever earth goes. What else is being "dragged along" with our solar system?
Everything has permittivity and/or permeability in various quantities, even what is considered "empty space." I put the term "fabric of space" into one of the big search engines, and it returned 1,470,000 hits. The scientific community has disposed of the aether, but they seemed to have no difficulty in embracing the concept of the "fabric of space." Now they have "invented" the Higgs to perform one or more of the functions that it was assumed the aether provided.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the miniscule permittivity/permeability of space represents the primordial basis of what eventually becomes matter? The Casmir effect is identifying something in what contemporary scientists consider "nothing", except this nothing has permeability and permittivity.
[deleted]
Hi Edwin,
Thanks for taking the time to explain everything in a more detail. Shifting back into thinking mode. :)
- Shawn