Essay Abstract

The assumption that matter and space are two separate entities (or substances) has resulted in the creation and development of two mutually exclusive theories of reality: quantum mechanics and relativity. The power of these two theories is undeniable, however they are incompatible and there are many questions which cannot be resolved. The belief that reality is comprised of two substances is the root cause of our continual failure to build a workable unified quantum theory of gravity (or theory of everything). This dual substance world view has also led us to the unfortunate philosophical interpretation that we are separate entities (particles of matter) living in the universe rather than beings that are part of the universe as a whole, where all the parts are intrinsically connected. This essay proposes an essential change in mindset that creates a pathway to a holistic, interconnected paradigm.

Author Bio

Peter CM Hahn is an honors graduate of the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (Electronics Engineering Technology) and a Certified Engineering Technologist. He worked for TELUS Communications Inc. in various telecommunications related technologies: digital switching, fiber optics, database and web development. Peter is an independent thinker and researcher and an active member of the Art Society of Strathcona County. Now that he is retired, he can focus his time and energy on his two favorite passions: woodworking and the pursuit of a Theory Of Everything.

Download Essay PDF File

  • [deleted]

Peter,

Your essay brings out multiple issues in an interesting manner. A change in "mindset", as this essay suggests, is definitely needed.

The questions you ask in the Crazy Conundrums section will definitely be considered heretical by those that passionately believe that the current theories are correct. The first question in the Crazy Conundrums section is likely to cause stress even to those that approach physics from the classical viewpoint. It is quite possible that a number of the crazy conundrum questions will go away if there is a proper answer to the first question, "Why is gravitational mass and inertial mass equivalent?"

The classic definition of inertia makes it difficult to ascribe it to any known characteristics of Newtonian or curved space-time gravity. Both gravity theories have to accommodate the inertial influence of other objects regardless of distance. Newtonian mechanics, which is used to determine the orbits of planetary objects, simply ignores the distance between objects, resulting in what is termed "instantaneous influence at a distance." Einstein called it "spooky." Our planetary orbits would rapidly become increasing spirals without an instantaneous gravity influence in solar system distances.

Many of the essays in this contest identify problems with single assumptions, mine also (topic 1294), and some suggest how to correct a particular assumption. Several essays tackle more than one of the alleged erroneous assumptions, this one covering a wide gamut of incompatible assumptions. I doubt the peer review processes of traditional science journals would allow even one criticism and correction of a generally accepted assumption to make it to publication even if it provided an almost irrefutable solution, unless the author had one or more Nobel Prizes attached to their name.

I can offer a possible "mindset" change solution involving the first crazy conundrum question using a classical physics solution.

Helical EM Gravity

The paper contains a paragraph about inertia. The concluding sentence in the paragraph states, "The classical definition of inertia is applicable for distances that result in essentially instantaneous action at a distance, with delayed inertia, but inevitable, between objects beyond instantaneous distances."

It will be interesting to see if any of the essays in this contest will make it into a mainstream journal.

    Dear Peter Hahn,

    My previous FQXi essays assume ONE SUBSTANCE, which could therefore only evolve through self-interaction. This led to a master equation from which Newton's equation, a generalized Heisenberg quantum equation, Schrodinger's equation and particle physics derived. These essays are still online. This approach is spelled out in much greater detail in The Chromodynamics War and Gene Man's World. My current essay, The Nature of the Wave Function, extends the treatment to quantum mechanics.

    As Frank Makinson comments above, peer review processes are notoriously not open to such a non-traditional approach. Instead current 'big name' theories invoke literally *hundreds* of fields as the basis of 10^500 universes.

    I cannot present the case for an entire universe evolved from 'one undivided single substance' in a comment, other than to tell you that I believe you are correct to demand such a solution and to point you to where this solution has been developed. The answers to most of your conundrums can be found in the references. The answer to your last two is that neither space nor time is granular (although the particle creation process leads to stable particles that we think of as 'matter' or 'condensate')

    Very few people seem to find the need for a single substance solution to be important, so I hope that your essay contributes to changing this situation.

    Best of luck in the contest,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Peter

    I think both Boscovich and Einstein agreed with your thesis, as do I. Boscovich as space being the 'sphere of influence' around matter, and Einstein (1952) with;

    "Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning."

    I found in my essay some very important implications arising from this structure, where the local space around all 'matter' is, along with the dense core, kinetically 'mutually exclusive' (only has one assignable state of motion with respect to other states). This scaled hierarchical system has the precise structure of truth functional logic.

    I describe the model in my essay, using metaphors to help kinetic thinking, describing exciting results, but you're right, it's almost invisible without a new way of thinking. As a free thinker I hope you may be one able to assimilate it's important findings.

    As for your essay, an exceptionally clear and well written analysis tackling an important subject well and with some originality, worth a high score even though not exploring implications of application, but probably sensibly. Mine in trying to do became too dense for many to hold on to. so hope you may see those I've found, comment and score mine accordingly.

    Very best of luck in the competition.

    Peter

      Frank,

      Thanks for your response.

      I checked your 'Helical EM Gravity' link and there is no mention of the word inertia. In your summary, you state "Antenna, receiver and signal processor systems will have to be developed to enable them to efficiently acquire HEM emissions, which will aid in identifying the frequency of the EM gravity force." Do you have any ideas on the design of such a receiver? Publishing a detailed design of a device or experiment would add immense credibility to your theory.

      Sticking to the theme of Indra's Net, Foamy Ether Theory (FET) has an inherently easy and natural explanation for the equivalence of inertia and gravity. The inflow of space (or foamy ether) predicted by FET shows that space is accelerating through us while standing on the surface of the earth. This is equivalent to a body (i.e. rocket) accelerating through space. The mathematical proof is presented on page: http://www3.telus.net/foamyether/gravity.html.

      Cheers,

      Peter

      Peter,

      Thanks for your encouraging feedback.

      I like your quote from Boscovich regarding a "sphere of influence around matter" and Einstein's quote "Space without ether is unthinkable". This is very much in line with Foamy Ether Theory where matter is merely a distortion in the foamy ether (existing in an empty background void) and the foamy ether itself is the preferred frame of reference. This model also allows for the "infinite number of spaces in motion relatively to each other" as you mentioned in your essay.

      In response to your comment "not exploring implications of application", I intentionally left that part out to satisfy FQXi's criteria of not using the competition to 'trot out our pet theories'. However, FET does present an actual 'physical model of reality' with a number of bold (and testable predictions), and offers a unique design for a gravitational wave detector.

      At first glance, it appears that the ideas presented in your essay are very much in line with mine. I look forward to examining them in more depth.

      Cheers,

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      Peter,

      Saw the link to your website and FET (which I previously was only vaguely aware of). I very much like your one substance analogies. If you are looking for a mathematical basis to develop your theory, where I also concluded the same thing, see my essay here. A number of the essays in this contest are converging on a coherent physical theory.

      Modeling particles as elastic wave packet (see Sandhu Section 5) holes using a mathematically correct form of the Einsten tensor (my essay), imagine the Fig.2 of Marcoen's paper as traveling holes instead of particles which would seem to fit with the one substance analogies.

      Comments appreciated.

      Regards,

      Jeff Baugher

        • [deleted]

        Peter,

        The Foamy Ether theory has considerable material and it will take some time to examine it.

        "Do you have any ideas on the design of such a receiver? Publishing a detailed design of a device or experiment would add immense credibility to your theory."

        I spent a good portion of last year and the early part of this year in trying to do exactly that. I submitted papers to two different IEEE publications. After the first rejection I submitted it the second publication. Both papers dealt with the issues of antenna and receiver concepts, each with an emphasis on the technical areas the particular publications covered. Both went to peer review. I was not provided with the peer review results from the first publication. I was even asked to provide a Benefits section for the first IEEE submission, which I didn't consider unusual. The editor-in-chief provided a rejection statement noting that the Benefits were considered "speculation."

        The associate editors for the particular publications were academics, Professors of electrical engineering. After rejection by the IEEE publications, I then submitted a revised paper to an ARRL publication that publishes articles on new communications concepts. Another interesting rejection statement.

        It is not possible to get any paper published in a traditional science publication if it contains material that conflicts with Einstein's curved space-time theory of gravity even if the material never mentions gravity. My IEEE and ARRL submissions presented material on antenna and receiver concepts needed to properly detect helical electromagnetic emissions, gravity was never mentioned.

        I have a published IEEE paper where I was asked to provide a Benefits section, and I cite this paper in my essay, topic 1294.

        I mention "contiguous coupling" and Coulomb's law in my paper. If I do not put contiguous coupling in my paper, there is no need for the paper. The contiguous EM coupling can be exploited for communications, basically instantaneous communications in solar system distances and near instantaneous to the nearest star to our own.

        In my Helical Electromagnetic Gravity paper(rev 2), I mention inertia in the first full paragraph at the top of page 5. "Gravity is a two-way process, .... "

        Frank,

        I hear you. Most established institutions are not interested in alternative ideas; their purpose is to perpetuate the status quo. Thanks to the internet, sites like FQXi and viXra can give dissident scientists (like you and I) the opportunity to be heard. The question is, will there be enough meaningful content in these sites for its contributors to be taken seriously? And if that happens, will the contributor get proper credit?

        General relativity is so protected by the physics community that it has essentially become a religion, where dissidents are completely ignored. GR followers create pure fabrications when observations don't agree with theory, like the invention of dark matter.

        History has shown us over and over again that a serious crisis must occur before alternate theories are considered. I predict that that crisis will be the failure of interferometers (i.e. LIGO and Virgo) to detect gravitational waves, similar to how the Michelson-Morely experiment failed to detect relative motion through the ether. But this won't occur until well after LIGO is upgraded to Advanced LIGO (most likely 2016).

        So all we can do is keep plugging away at our ideas and patiently wait for recognition. (I'm retired, so I'm not in any hurry.)

        "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." - Galileo Galilei.

        Cheers,

        Peter

        Jeff,

        Thanks for your references.

        Personally, I believe that mathematics has been far too successful over the years. This has caused physicists to falsely assume that mathematics is all you really need to create a proper theory of everything, and that an actual 'physical model of reality' is not necessary. I'm amazed at how advanced the mathematics of QM and GR have become without a working model. However, I think it's time we took a break from the equations and focus on developing an actual model of reality that exposes the true underlying structure of reality, starting at the Planck scale (and strings are not the answer). That will give us a starting point and give the mathematicians a true picture of reality for them to base their equations upon. This should eventually lead to the creation of computer simulations that truly emulate real physical processes. This is the approach that FET is taking. And at first glance, it appears that you and Marcoen are taking this approach as well. I look forward to examining your essay in more detail.

        Cheers,

        Peter

        • [deleted]

        Peter,

        I entirely agree with you when you said, "A proper theory of everything should be a theory with the fewest axioms and assumptions." The same idea occurred to me and I developed into a book titled "The Universe Is Only Spacetime" (available online here). Obviously, the premise also agrees with your point that there should be no difference between matter and spacetime. What I call the "quantum mechanical model of spacetime" is developed into the basic building block of all particles, fields and forces. This not only satisfies the requirement of being the simplest starting assumption, but it also generates some surprising predictions that are easy to prove correct. For example, my essay titled "Insights into the Unification of Forces" presents a previously unknown relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic force. This relationship was actually a prediction generated by the spacetime based model of particles and forces.

        • [deleted]

        Peter,

        Actually, you and I do agree very much on mathematics. I view them as a tool to help explain a physical model, but those equations are still necessary to produce comparisons with empirical data. What is even better, though, is when the alternative model is developed enough so that you can spot a mathematical flaw in main stream equations. The difficulty then is being able to show that mainstream equations lead to an unknown paradox, or even better that a change in the mathematics clears up a mainstream equation but simultaneously makes the mainstream physical models unacceptable.

        I think the best place to start is with mainstream equations that are already known not to work, and to see what it would physically mean to change some assumptions. Perhaps we will meet in the middle on our models.

        Regards,

        Jeff

        • [deleted]

        Peter,

        I have been sifting through a lot of sand to find the jewel of your essay.

        Your description of Mass (objects) and Space-time as two sides of the same coin makes sense. If you are missing either one you have the nonsense of a coin with one side.

        Relativity theory links mass and space together in a limited way, where both exist as independent entities which have a minor relationship where mass curves space-time.

        Quantum theory has point particles and waves which makes it seem that it is connecting mass and space-time, except for the fact we have one or the other but not both simultaneously. this gives us two coins without backsides. So you could say twice the nonsense of relativity.

        I believe there is a principle culprit in this state of affairs and it is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which is like a tax loophole which most physicist cannot survive without.

        My favorite theory is at: www.digitalwavetheory.com I think you may enjoy it.

        Best of Luck

        Don L.

        Peter CM Hahn

        In accordance with Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter I have some answers to questions in your essay.

        1) Why is gravitational mass and inertial mass equivalent? - While the body is moving with constant velocity relative to an isotropic reference system, the force of gravitation does not prevent the movement of the body moves by inertia. In an isotropic system of reference fluxes of gravitons isotropic and equal on all sides. In this case, the mass as a measure of inertia of a body is not found. If the body slow down or speed up, that is, to change the state of the body under the fluxes of gravitons, there is inertia. If we divide this force of inertia by the acceleration, we obtain the inertial mass. In other situations, there are two bodies, and between them there is a gravitational force. Cause of gravitation - shielding of fluxes of gravitons in these bodies relative to each other. The gravitational force is proportional to the mass of each body, and these are called gravitational mass. That is at the heart of the inertial and gravitational mass is the same - the pressure of fluxes of gravitons. Therefore, the masses can be compared to each other. For details, see Fedosin S.G. Model of Gravitational Interaction in the Concept of Gravitons. // Journal of Vectorial Relativity, March 2009, Vol. 4, No. 1, P.1-24.

        2) Why are there two unique (completely different) causes of time dilation? Moving through space causes time to slow down (as described by special relativity); and standing still on the surface of a large chunk of matter causes time to slow down (as described by general relativity). Furthermore, why is the time dilation on the surface of the earth equal to the time dilation of a rocket traveling at speed equal to the earth's escape velocity? Is this pure coincidence? - The main reason for time dilation is the additional energy of clocks. As it was shown in the book: Fedosin S.G. Fizicheskie teorii i beskonechnaia vlozhennost' materii. Perm, 2009, 844 pages, Tabl. 21, Pic. 41, Ref. 289. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0, (§ 5), all terms in Lagrangian give time dilation. See also Fedosin S.G. The Hamiltonian in covariant theory of gravitation. vixra.org, 22 May 2012. So dilation of time depends of motion (kinetic energy), energy in fields potentials (gravitational and electromagnetic), and also energy from fields strengths (gravitational and electromagnetic). Since the gravitational energy of mass on the surface of the earth is equal to kinetic energy at the earth's escape velocity then their time dilation equal each other.

        3) Why can't we solve the wave-particle duality conundrum where particles behave like waves and waves behave like particles? The duality of light has had brilliant minds baffled for centuries.- Wave-particle duality is a consequence of internal standing electromagnetic waves in particles. When we recount with the help of Lorentz transformations these waves in the reference frame, where the particles moving, we find complex wave which amplitude have de Broglie wavelength. See Fedosin S.G. Fizika i filosofiia podobiia ot preonov do metagalaktik. Perm' : S.G. Fedosin, 1999, 544 pages. ISBN 5-8131-0012-1. The reason for photon wave-particle duality is other. Every wave quantum (photon) consist of numerous small quanta from the very small charges of substance of electron, if this photon is radiated by the electron in atom. So photon is a particle but the particle is discrete and has wave properties.

        4) If particles can be waves and waves can be particles, why does the Pauli exclusion principle apply to fermions but not to bosons? - The Pauli principle is a consequence of electromagnetic interaction of magnetic moments of particles and of electromagnetic induction. When two electrons interact in atom their magnetic moments are opposite, so the pair of such electrons is a bosons with small common magnetic moment. See Fedosin S.G. Fizicheskie teorii i beskonechnaia vlozhennost' materii. (§ 14). Perm, 2009, 844 pages, ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0.

        5) If virtual photons are used to explain the electric and magnetic force, how do electrons 'know' which direction to fire the photon? - In answer to question 1 there was pointed the cause of gravitation - action of fluxes of gravitons, in accordance with the Le Sage's theory of gravitation. Just in the same way electric and magnetic forces can be explained, by fluxes of very small charged particles in the composition of fluxes gravitons. See Fedosin S.G. Fizicheskie teorii i beskonechnaia vlozhennost' materii. (§ 19). Perm, 2009, 844 pages, ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0.

        6) If an electron is a fundamental particle and absorbs a photon, is it still a fundamental particle? Should it not be more than fundamental while it's storing a photon? - In the book Fizicheskie teorii i beskonechnaia vlozhennost' materii. (§ 14). Perm, 2009, 844 pages, ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0 the structure of electron is described, its spin is explained. The electron in atom is a cloud in form of disc rotating around the nucleus. The photon can rotate the electron disc and pass to it angular momentum and energy, and electron pass to another energy state. The elementarity of electron do not change in this situation.

        7) What is the mechanism that ensures that electrons stay in their proper orbits? - The mechanism of it is the equality of fluxes of mechanical and fields energy in the substance of electron disc. See Fizicheskie teorii i beskonechnaia vlozhennost' materii. (§ 14). Perm, 2009, 844 pages, ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0.

        8) How is it possible for point particles (i.e. quarks and electrons) to have spin or angular momentum? - The electron is not a point particle. Quarks are not autonomic particles, they are quasiparticles or parts of substance of hadrons, from their core or their shell respectively. See the model of quark quasiparticles in the Fizicheskie teorii i beskonechnaia vlozhennost' materii. (§ 12). Perm, 2009, 844 pages, ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0.

        9) What is the purpose of antimatter? And why does matter and antimatter annihilate each other on contact? - From the model of quark quasiparticles and substantial model of proton and substantial model of neutron: in the center of neutron is positive charge, in the shell is negative charge; the proton has positive charge. In antiproton all the charge is negative. The substance of nucleons is hold by strong gravitation . In annihilation the sharges of particles and antiparticles disappear, and electromagnetic energy and energy of strong gravitation and rotation of particles gives energy loss by photons and formation of some pions. For electron and positron annihilation the main is electromagnetic energy so the photons are appeared.

        10) What happened to all the antimatter moments after the big bang? - I do not believe in the big bang.

        11) How does matter couple to and curve space-time? Do particles have little hooks that pull on the surrounding space to distort it? - The space-time is not really curved. It is simply the result of our procedure of space-time measurements with the help of electromagnetic waves. The problem is that nonisotropic fluxes of gravitons changed the motion of electromagnetic waves in space. The result is curving of light trajectories and change the speed of light near the massive bodies. According to modernized Le Sage's theory of gravitation near the massive bodies are the largest changes of energy of fluxes of gravitons (largest gradients of field potential) and so the largest effective curving of space-time.

        Sergey Fedosin

          Sergey,

          Thanks for your interesting and very detailed response.

          However, I find it rather peculiar that you are basing your explanations on "fluxes of gravitons" since gravitons are pure hypothetical particles that have not been proven to exist (and I doubt ever will). What medium carries the "flux"? Can you draw me a picture or make a simulation without using equations? I am not convinced that gravity can be explained by gravitons since gravitons must have their own fields. So you are using a particle to describe a field, but that particle must also have a field. What is the transport mechanism of a graviton's field? It makes more sense to visualize gravity and matter as distortions in space-time.

          The crazy conundrums that I mentioned are unanswered questions created by QM and relativity. I'm sure that alternative theories would likely have their own unique set of conundrums and paradoxes as well. What is seriously missing in ALL the theories I've seen is an actual 'working physical model of reality', with pictures of what reality actually 'looks like' if you could zoom down to the Planck scale! Only then can we build real working computer simulations that truly emulate reality at a fundamental level (no fancy equations or ad hoc constants). As far as I know, foamy ether theory is the only theory that offers that!

          Regards,

          Peter

          • [deleted]

          Peter,

          I agree with your criticism of gravitons. One of the erroneous assumptions that my essay attacks is that the gravitational force is transferred by gravitons. In fact, I show that there is a previously unknown mathematical relationship between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force. For a fundamental set of conditions, the equations for the gravitational force only differs from the electrostatic force equations by a square term. This insight supports the idea that these forces are closely related and not transferred by gravitons or virtual photons.

          Peter

          You can imagine gravitons as cosmic rays that consist of relativistic protons. Such gravitons may not have their own fields and medium carries the "flux". On the other hand gravitons may be similar to photons and neutrinos. The model of photon as a particle see in: Fedosin S.G. Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13.

          Sergey Fedosin

          Hi 聽Peter

          I read your essay with interest; I too spent much time thinking what constitutes matter and how it interacts with space and other matter. 聽The probability cloud of electron orbits in shapes of dumbbells, donuts and other weird geometric shapes is in concept as weird as gravitational singularities, thus other solutions should be found.

          Your one substance paradigm I befriend, in essence I believe that space is structured and is the only substance. Every thing else is merely a vibration or disturbance of the space.

          This I realised as there is only one mathematical equation that describes motion, and that is the wave equation, Thus everything breaks down to waves in space and Maxwell's equations.

          Regards

          Anton @ 聽( 聽/topic/1458 聽)

          10 days later

          Peter,

          I really enjoyed your essay! You make a number of points that modern physicists would do well to appreciate:

          1. Physics is more than mathematics. It's fine, and often necessary, to have difficult and intricate math in physical theories, but if you want your approach to work in the long run, the math should follow the ideas and make them precise, not the other way around. Any physical theory not based on a simple physical principle or hypothesis ought to be viewed with skepticism.

          2. Single-substance paradigm. I'd be interested to know a bit more of your ideas about what the single substance should be. You might be interested in looking at my ideas on this in my essay here: On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics. I think that spacetime and matter-energy are two different (emergent) aspects of a single underlying structure, which is closely related to cause and effect.

          3. Holism. This can arise in a variety of ways. I prefer to view it in a quantum sense, as classical versions seem to me to lead to weird things like multiple time dimensions. I think that quantum holism is inevitable, at least in the context of sums over histories, which make more sense to me as a fundamental idea than taking for granted Hilbert spaces, operator algebras, etc.

          Take care,

          Ben