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]

  • Post #18

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]

    • Post #21

    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]

    • Post #22

    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]

    • Post #23

    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]

    • Post #24

    Dear John

    If you have free time read please my essay

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

    • [deleted]

    • Post #25

    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

    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]

      • Post #31

      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.

        Sergey Fedosin

        If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

        Sergey Fedosin

          Sergey,

          Thank you for your two comments. Apparently you have put in a lot of time reading and rating essays. I personally believe that my essay contains concrete new information that actually PROVES that the cited assumptions are wrong. I think that the connection between the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force described in my essay is an important new insight that needs to be communicated to the scientific community. I plan to expand this article and submit the new article to a scientific journal. In the final analysis, the best articles are the ones that have the biggest impact on science as judged by future generations.

          John

          24 days later

          • [deleted]

          • Post #37

          John,

          A further thought (maybe not original) after reading your essay again..

          What if particle theory is unnecessary?

          The physics of the last 2000 years has been dominated by measuring moving mass. Moving mass is what we see and touch, or try to detect and measure if we can't see or touch it.

          A particle suffices to satisfy our need to visualize something solid. Our visualization of solidity derives from the senses of touch and vision. Both of these work by energy sensors. The brain creates the perception of solidity from energy detection (philanthropic theory?).

          Particles are interchangeable with energy, mass is energy. A force is a movement of energy in space time, which can be described in terms of wavelength, frequency, amplitude and phase.

          All particle physics experiments detect energy. Everything we measure is a change in, or relocation of energy.

          All energy can be described by wave theory. Forces can be unified in wave theory.

          How nice it would be to forget about all those real and imaginary, infinite and mass-less particles, and think only of wavelength, frequency, amplitude and phase.

          ajh44@live.co.uk