it was me the spherical jedi.
Insights Into the Unification of Forces by John Alan Macken
Lawrence,
We have fundamentally different views of the universe in general and gravity in particular. From your post and essay, you model includes gravitons, vibrating strings, dilatons, axions, and compactified spacetime. While you do not enumerate exactly how many dimensions you need, I presume it is 5, 10, 11 or 26. I propose that the single building block of the universe is 4 dimensional spacetime which is filled with vacuum zero point energy. From Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is the best. Therefore, it is a worthy scientific pursuit to thoroughly explore this simplest possible starting assumption.
I am an inventor (36 patents), so I decided to see if it was possible to invent a model of the universe made out of only 4 dimensional spacetime. The first task was to develop a model of spacetime itself. This was followed by a model of particles made out of only spacetime. One day it occurred to me that if my particle and force models were correct, then there should be a relationship between gravity and the other forces which could be expressed as a square. The particle model was a wave in spacetime possessing quantized angular momentum of 1/2 h bar. There are many missing parts of this explanation, but the bottom line is that this model PREDICTED the mathematical relationships described in my essay. The entire analysis is documented in the online book available [onlyspacetime.com/]here[/link]. Other subjects covered include predictions about inertia, electric fields and cosmology.
John
Despite the right letter my long post didn't stick! I didn't immediately notice. It's happened elsewhere too. The post was full of eulogies and congratulations for a quite brilliant essay, with much specific agreement, and on an important central topic.
Messenger particles have always made me almost distraught with present physics. Your foundations are entirely as used in my own essay, though I take a different route to a different vista of the same reality. A more naive view, with some theatre to assist in the seemingly impossible, kinetic visualisation required to unify SR GR and QM. You have that picture so may better recognise other aspects. I have a mountain of astronomical evidence supporting your view.
I'd greatly appreciate your considered views on my own essay, but if you try to read it too fast you may 'bounce off' the underlying and unfamiliar derivations.
Well done and very best of luck. Good score coming for sure.
Peter
PS. I've developed better glue via a a cut and re-paste technique so this should now post.
Peter,
I have read your essay and I believe that the description of spacetime I develop in my book will help you quantify some of your ideas. For example, I show that spacetime is an elastic medium with impedance of Zs = c3/G. This is obtained both from gravitational wave equations and from vacuum zero point energy density. The quantum mechanical model of spacetime that I develop has energy density of 10113 J/m3. This energy density is equal to the famous 10120 ratio of vacuum energy density obtained from QED to the observed energy density of the universe obtained from cosmology and GR (10-9 J/m3).
This large QED energy density is usually assumed to be impossible, but I show how it is not only possible but also essential for the existence of all particles, fields and forces. The point of interest to you is that I go on to characterize an electric field as a distortion of spacetime (a new constant of nature is suggested). When this constant is applied to electromagnetic radiation it is shown that the impedance of free space Zo is equal to the impedance of spacetime obtained from gravitational waves. What this implies is that photons are a quantized wave disturbance that propagates in the medium of spacetime. This short post cannot address all questions but ultimately this relates to the perception that the speed of light is constant. The details are available here.
[deleted]
John,
Great essay. I have yet to examine or attempt to find errors in your math but I do agree with your conclusions on at least two of the assumptions. I don't say three as I was not familiar with the second and want to examine it further. Your conclusions dovetail nicely with my own essay here, so any comments you have would also be appreciated.
Regards,
Jeff
Jeff,
Even though my essay is about the unification of gravity with the electromagnetic force, the book behind the essay covers a much broader range of physics. For example, chapters 13 and 14 of this book discussed the implications for cosmology of the starting assumption that the universe is only spacetime. The expansion of the proper volume of the universe is explained as resulting from the transformation of the properties of spacetime. This transformation started with the Big Bang and continues today. This alternative model entirely changes the perspective on dark energy and the cosmological constant. It is not possible to explain the implications for dark energy in this short post, but details are available here.
Joe,
Thank you for the endorsement. My book goes much further and shows the steps that derive the gravitational force between particles from first principles. This derivation relies only on the quantum mechanical properties of spacetime. There is no analogy to acceleration. Furthermore, the wave-based particle model explains many of the counterintuitive properties of quantum mechanics.
[deleted]
John,
Have been looking through your book, where I agree with a large portion of the philosophy within it. I would take exception to certain portions of 4.1
As we both know, Lambda guv may be equated to the potential energy of the quantum vacuum (based on wave equations). However, the magnitude of energy of the energy momentum tensor of Tuv=Guv is based on a particle description of matter. From everything I have read in your book, you should have some concerns that these are describing energy with two different models.
You might find it helpful to consider whether General Relativity is the only description of energy possible with Riemannian geometry. By this I mean it may be possible to describe energy as particles with Guv, or sticking with the wave model as Lambda guv-Luv, but not both at the same time. As the second one seems to use only one model of spacetime, adhere to the same qualifications (divegencefree etc) as the particle model, but also should show a reversal of gravity depending on radius, I am curious as to how you would see it fitting within your own philosophy.
Regards,
Jeff Baugher
[deleted]
Jeff,
Your post says, "I would take exception to certain portions of 4.1". I am not able to understand what 4.1 references. My chapter 4 does not deal with particles or potential energy. Also, I never use the term "potential energy" because I claim that all energy can be conceptually understood in terms of the effect on spacetime. Even two colliding particles (my model) do not have the vague notion of "potential energy". My wave based model specifies the structural changes that take place in particles to temporarily accommodate the extra energy storage.
[deleted]
John,
I apologize. I had been reading your book and I must have gotten a passage from something else I was reading mixed up with yours. Going back through it again, I found nothing I disagreed with.
Regards,
Jeff
9 days later
[deleted]
Dear John
If you have free time read please my essay
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413
[deleted]
If the Universe working thIS way, then your theory stand ?
Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch
c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10
G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28
h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28
alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1
e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12
11 days later
Dear John,
I am sure that gravitation is a real physical force which can be explained in Le Sage theory, see Model of Gravitational Interaction in the Concept of Gravitons. In the article Planck force is the maximum force for star objects.
Sergey,
I have looked over the article you reference and I have to respectfully disagree with the concept that gravitons cause gravity. The article does not offer any "proof" nor does it make any predictions. My article gives a previously unknown relationship between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force. I show that when the wave properties of particles are used to express separation distance and energy, then the gravitational force only differs from the electromagnetic force by a square term. Furthermore, this relationship was predicted by a model of the universe based on the quantum mechanical properties of 4 dimensional spacetime. The complete derivation of this model and the derivation of the forces is lengthy and contained in the online book referenced in my article.
John Macken
Hoang,
Your comment is difficult to follow and it has nothing to do with my article. I do not address the Higgs boson, the LHC, inertia, etc.
John Macken
5 days later
Dear John
I read your essay and glanced through your tour-de-force book "The Univers Is Only Spacetime" and was really impressed by your insights into how to solve fundamental issues in physics. I envy you your highly professional mathematical description of your ideas.
At one point in your book you say "There is only one truly fundamental field. This single field is the dipole wave vacuum fluctuations of spacetime.". In my mostly qualitative 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory on which I based my fqxi essay Fix Physics! the fundamental building block of the universe is a dipolar localized node of [non-fluctuating!] angular momentum. As in your work this leads to a variable speed of light in gravitational fields, a re-definition of gravity and explanation of how it works, a negation of the actual existence of virtual particle. In my model however, time is not a dimension, hence spacetime is not 'real'.
As I have argued, Einstein did physics no service by starting out with c=constant and banishing the ether. That twisted everything into surrealistic flexible spacetime, and greatly complicated GR which in my theory (and perhaps, basically, in yours) is just based on density variations in the universal medium. Indeed gravity and electromagnetism and everything else are made of the same stuff. There is one fundamental element in my theory that does not seem to be covered in yours: chirality. I see gravity as a twisting of the dipolar nodes , as in a spring, changing the potential gradient between them. This ability to twist is the basis of quantum spin in clusters of nodes locked into a polyhedral particle configuration.
By the way I think you will enjoy the work of my late friend Gabriel LaFrenier on his website Matter Is Only waves
I sincerely wish you the best of luck to promote and develop your ideas.
Vladimir.
[deleted]
Dear John
I suspect this is a rare layman reaction to your essay. My understanding of GUTS goes back to Maxwell and Einstein at University in the 70's, learning (and memorizing) the derivations but not really understanding the implications until later. Hawkin was excellent in his explanations in the 80's.
While I don't completely follow the maths, I don't need to. The result of your derivation is both beautiful and compelling in its simplicity. Gravity is a real force, it's even switched on at weekends,it is always positive ( right there is observational proof of your theory) and it must be related to other forces. Your essay makes this very clear, without the conceptually difficult requirement of particle (real or imaginary) exchange or multiple dimensions. I will now attempt to read your book
Thank you...
Alan,
Thank you for your complementary post. You really "get it" when it comes to understanding the significance of the relationship between the forces implied by the equations. In the article I was forced to skip over the derivation math because of the contest rules. However, it is simple algebra that is given in the book. The book goes much further and shows the origin of gravitational attraction without making an analogy to acceleration. When the model of particles, fields and forces is based on the quantum mechanical properties of spacetime, then all the mysteries of QM and GR becomes conceptually understandable.
John
Vladimir,
I have read your essay and looked over your "Beautiful Universe Theory". Unfortunately, I have found some technical flaws that would reveal themselves if you attempted to carry this model further and calculate the implied properties of your model of spacetime, fundamental particles and gravity. The model proposed in my book has undergone numerous plausibility calculations to make sure that each step conforms to reality. For example, my particle model of an electron gives the correct inertia, internal energy, gravity, Compton frequency, de Broglie wavelength, etc. This thorough analysis of each step has kept me on a narrow path. I have had the experience of occasionally straying off this narrow path and immediately the next calculation was off by a factor of 1050. The essay that I have submitted describes an unexpected result obtained from the analysis of the gravitational and electromagnetic forces exerted between two of my wave-based particles.
John
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.
Cood luck.