The Persistent Failure of a Two Substance Paradigm by Peter CM Hahn

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

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, .... "

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.

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

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

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)

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

Benjamin,

Thanks for your input. Your essay is extremely interesting, however, beyond my mathematical understanding.

I agree with your point 1 "Physics is more than mathematics". A working physical model of reality is absolutely essential, but seriously lacking in QM and GR. I prefer using the bottom-up approach, which has allowed me to develop Foamy Ether Theory. This theory describes a single-substance paradigm and is based on an actual working physical model. (I'm confident that you will find it interesting.) Perhaps your "quantum circuits" could be applied in modeling foamy ether structure!

Cheers,

Peter

Benjamin,

Looks like my link to Foamy Ether Theory is broken.

Here it is:

http://www3.telus.net/foamyether/

Peter

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

On my site I present new unified, final theory (ToE) of the Universe which proves that all physical phenomena - mass, electric charge, electric field, magnetic field, gravity and gravitational field - are consequences of changes in local pressure and density of the ether. Ether, which fills infinite space of the Universe, is enormously dense, and contains enormous energy. Theory calculates all experimentaly measured values on subatomic, atomic and cosmic level.

address is http://www.vasiona.rs/en/

Please contact me if you have any questions.