Fix Physics! – Reverse Engineer Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model, Get Rid of Outdated Assumptions, Consolidate, and Reconstruct on New First Principles by Vladimir F. Tamari

Hi Vladimir,

You ask "What incomplete ugly architectural plan were you referring to in that exchange?"

The point is that in fact, there is no architectural plan in quantum theory, which isn't even a true theory by my strict standards of correspondence between theory and result, which can also be interpreted as correspondence of language and meaning, or of blueprint to structure. In quantum theory, "What you see is what you get." (George Ellis has some elegant explanations in his essay forum on this "top down" relation between abstraction and physical realization.)

What you see as weakness in relativity, I see as strength. You write, "It is so structured as to shut out possibly important aspects of reality, viz. the ether, a timeless universe, and worst of all, the possibility of an absolute physics not dominated everywhere by the observer's point of view. Einstein proposed *absolute observation* (c is constant) but this made the Universe relative."

Actually, Einstein knew -- and intended -- that general relativity is incomplete. In fact, he objected to the label "relativity" for his theory (Mach was the true relativist), thinking that it should be called the theory of invariance or something similar. History overruled him. What general relativity does do, is to completely explain gravity in the classical domain, the large scale structure of the universe. It's a bit misleading to say that relativity is "dominated everywhere by the observer's point of view," because the actual physics is the same for every observer ("all physics is local").

"But why insert an observer in every point in the universe?" Because an observer already exists at every point in the universe, as Bose-Einstein statistics demonstrates. That's what allows any number of bosons to occupy any point, in contrast to Fermi-Dirac statistics in which a massive particle (fermion) can occupy only one state at one time. The reconciling of bosonic properties with fermionic properties in a smoothly connected theory of quantum gravity is an open problem.

"What if one starts by saying the Universe is absolute (where c has a maximum but can slow down in gravity), and only in cases of measurements involving inertial frames, *observation is relative* subject to Lorentz transformations. No observer need be present in GR - who is going to measure the speed of a light ray, Ray, as it curves around the Sun? We can simply apply what we know of the dynamics of deceleration and curvature in classical physics."

Right. But if one is going to propose a non-symmetric field theory one had better prepare to meet the same challenges that Einstein tried to overcome in his failed version ("The relativistic theory of the asymmetric field"). You seem to be using the term "observer" as a conscious agent -- physicists don't generally assign that meaning; observation refers to the interaction between a measuring apparatus (which could mean human observer but doesn't have to) and the source of the measurement.

"Being a speculative forum what is wrong with considering a new starting point and building on it from there one notion at a time?"

Not a thing! And I didn't mean to say or imply such; it's why I declined to offer a step-by-step critique of your framework. I know that your idea is all of a piece -- " ... a dynamic universal lattice where energy is transmitted locally from node to node at a maximum of c but at slower speeds when the nodes have greater potential as in a gravitational field." That's completely plausible, as is Garret Lisi's lattice-based E8 theory. Mathematicians don't deal in physical plausibility, however -- we are concerned with the abstractions (theorems, arguments, domain and range) that explain why this particular physics is preferred over any other equally plausible explanation.

So go forth and be imaginative! That's what makes life worth living, isn't it? And no one needs anyone else's permission, or a license, to do it.

Tom

Vladimir

"Do we both agree then that the photon is a a wave of particles? Gluons?"

Yes, how I view it is that it is the wave propagated from the photon particle passing bosonic particles, (higgs boson, w boson, z bosons, gluons bosons and maybe the axions bosons) in the higgs field that I have been referring to as the aether.

"Aristotle getting the Nobel? Hmm perhaps for some of his ideas, but imagine the embarrassment when all his other discounted ideas (rate of fall depending on weight of object, sight is caused by ocular rays emitted by the eyes, the four elements, etc etc) come to light!"

I was just attempting a little humor, however everybody who got the Nobel prize at one time in their history will be found to be fallible, imagine what people are going to say about the standard model, relativity, and what we wrote here 2,400 years from now.

Ron

Vladimir

Oh by the way your particle illustration on your essay is similar to what I was talking about.

Thanks

Ron

Hi Vladimir,

Thank you for your kind comments on my essay. I liked your essay and think that your building analogy very nicely captures an uncomfortable truth.

In response to your comments on my essay and your BU theory, you are indeed correct that the compactified dimensions of Kaluza-Klein style theories (KKT) give a basis for cellular automata models (CA) such as your BU theory. To account for all the particles and particle forces the minimum number of such extra dimensions is 7 - this is a general conclusion in physics and not specific to my work - but the simple case of 1 extra dimension gives the picture in 1 spatial dimension of a tube like a hosepipe. The character of KKT is such that physical measurement of the length of the tube - the spatial dimension - is effectively in terms of the cross-section, which has the effect of dividing the length into discrete units that can be modelled in terms of the cells of a CA model. In terms of a previous essay question: is reality analogue or digital? the answer in KKT seems to be both as the analogue spatial dimension is measured in discrete units. However, the intrinsic error of measurement using a fixed measuring stick is ½ the length of the stick - I show that this effect alone can give the Heisenberg uncertainty relation. In terms of cells in a CA, imagine two touching cells and then place a third cell on top them centred on the point at which they touch; this is effectively two neighbouring cells overlapping each other by half. This would model the measurement error limit to the digitising of space to a CA model. Of course in a CA model with non-overlapping cells such as yours this should be modellable by a suitable choice of update rules between the cells.

In my Kaluza-Klein theory - S10 unified field theory (STUFT) - the particles arise as topological defects, which in a digitised CA model would appear in a form similar to the multi-cell model of a particle you depict in Fig 16 of your paper. The issues for a CA model like yours are finding the right geometry for the cells in combination with the possible states of the cells, and then finding the correct update rules to model the physics. For the above reasons, I would expect such a CA model for a KKT like mine to exist in some form. I would then expect my proof that Gödel's incompleteness is the underlying reason for Quantum Theory to apply to such a CA model: I predict that the CA model would support universal computation and display computational irreducibility (the form Gödel's incompleteness takes in CA models).

Best wishes

Michael

Hi Vladimir

In response to our different pictures of how light travels through an aether, higgs field. I use a field of particles made of bosons, of which the higgs particle is also made of to demonstrate my aether. In other words in my belief the higgs field should also explain the duality of light. But where I deviate from the current understanding of the Higgs field is that like heavier gas particles in our atmosphere, the higgs bosons are the closest to matter where the farther away from matter you get the lighter the bosonic field that is generated. In other words that is why we can see throughout the universe because most of the bosonic field in interstellar and intergalactic space is made of mass-less gluons.

Oh by the way that is an interesting way to explain the double slit experiment. I have a different view of how that would work in my view it all depends on a bosonic condensate. That's why if you try to observe it the effect goes away like it would in a BEC, by observing it we are disrupting it informational lines of communications.

Sorry for the late response I was out of town for a while, good luck on your essay

Ron

Vladimir

On the issue of relationships between coupling constants and masses, because my Kaluza-Klein theory (STUFT) unifies physics in a pure geometric theory it leads to closed geometric formula for the Weinberg angle (eqn 4), the Higgs field coupling (eqn 27), Planck's constant (eqn 31), and the charges (eqns34-36). But I have no corresponding formula for the fermion masses, and in my theory they are not actually calculable.

It occurred to me that the particle configuration you are looking for in a CA model need not be a static configuration, but a self-consistent dynamic state that cycles between a number of configurations. For a discrete version of the sort of KKT I have considered I would suggest that the particle configuration should be cyclical, such that its motion could have an associated wave-like property. Finding such a CA version of particle and wave would be an interesting result.

Michael

Hello Vladimir,

I thank you for your comments on my essay forum page, and I am following up by attaching a photo of Anton Zeilinger in front of a book page talking about Einstein's letter expressing doubt the corpuscular theory of light. I also include a draft of a brief paper about a conceptual model of decoherence, because this material came up over there.

I want to affirm or agree with several of Michael Goodband's comments above. I began looking into CA models incorporating some of Michael's insights after a conversation with Gerard 't Hooft on the difficulties with achieving Lorentz invariance with CA based Quantum gravity theories, and the idea that the octonions (or octonionic space) might provide the degrees of freedom to account for observed symmetries.

I'll continue in another comment below, in a bit.

Regards,

JonathanAttachment #1: 3_DecoherenceReviewDraft.pdfAttachment #2: 2_AntonQuote.jpg

Hi Vladimir

I like your Beautiful Universe. It is like a Bohr model of space. I think you might be interested in quaternions, which are mathematical extensions of complex numbers. They are associated with spin in quantum mechanics.

A quaternion can be thought of as four numbers, any one of which may be taken as a reference for the other three. This conceptual link between the numbers leads to a picture of the quaternion as a tetrahedron.

Your face-centered cube model first struck me as odd since I might have expected simple hexagonal shapes, or the occupation of alternate nodes of a regular grid. The first possibility arose mainly from other investigations, and the second possibility was based on the three dimensional model of a quaternion I had been considering which places the tetrahedron representing the quaternion on four corners of a cube.

But then on reflection it became clear that the face-centered cube has alternate nodes occupied, and so could very well be related to a 3D structure for a model quaternion. In the attached diagram, the quaternion is shown in a 1/8 segment of a face-centered cube, ie 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 of a FCC.

Mathematically these cubes are assumed to be cyclic like circles or toruses, but that could also correspond to a grid of identical cubes in which case nodes could be placed on other cubes leading to different geometrical configurations of a quaternion, including the condition where the nodes are in the same plane in which case the quaternion bounds no volume, only area.

If you are interested, download John Baez The Octonions to see where I get this idea, which I readily admit could invite criticism as a gross misinterpretation of the mathematics as physics. First the octonions: they are an extension of the quaternions consisting of eight numbers, double again the size of a quaternion. As Baez puts it, "the octonions are the crazy old uncle nobody lets out of the attic".

Ignore the math. There are three diagrams on page 7. At the top is a circle with three nodes labeled i, j, k. These nodes correspond to three numbers of a quaternion with the reference number being hidden.

The second diagram on the page shows a triangular transformation table for the octonion (again not showing the reference number) with an inscribed circle with three nodes e1, e2, e4 on its circumference. I take these to refer to the nodes i, j, k above.

The third diagram on the page shows a mapping of the eight numbers in an octonion onto the eight corners of a cube. The reference number is now included and labeled with the number '1'. Notice that the reference number and e1, e2, and e4 connect diagonally across the faces of the cube, and occupy alternating nodes. I think that this could be a picture of a quaternion in space, but I doubt if that was intended.

I would have overlooked this possibility without the diagrams. You have obviously realized the importance of graphics in your essay and website.

Quaternions and octonions are the basis of modern mathematical physics and I would not be surprised to find them in your model.

Best wishes and I hope your essay does well.

ColinAttachment #1: quaternion3D.pdf

Dear Vladimir

Your remark about John Baez and cranks hit home. I had a dispute with John Baez over rejecting my first posting to sci.physics.research inquiring about supernova redshift data and got labeled as a crank in the process. He is the inventor of The Crackpot Index. From Wikipedia: "The method, proposed semi-seriously by mathematical physicist John Baez in 1992, computes an index by responses to a list of 36 questions..."

Petty humiliation can be quite effective. It would be a decade before I posted again. Baez's behaviour was likely symptomatic of a more widespread phenomenon. It seems to me that the situation has gotten worse to the extent that it has become institutionalized, countered for example by VIXRA (thanks to Philip Gibbs) as a reaction.

Here is a little story coincidentally about John Baez's doctoral supervisor. The late Irving Segal (1918-1998) developed a theory he called chronometric cosmology which called for redshift to vary with the square of the distance to account for curvature, instead of linearly as in Hubble's law. He noted that the data collected to support Hubble's law comprised a small part of the data available. Suspecting selection bias, he embarked on a program to analyze as much data as possible. What he found was that the larger data set clearly supported his model, not Hubble's law. This was found over a wide range of wavelengths and with the collaboration of various researchers in a series of papers. In spite of the data supporting his theory, physicists will tell you that supernova data imply accelerating expansion without even considering Segal. I am not optimistic about the future of physics when the critical work of an established and respected physicist is discounted.

Colin