Conceptual Barriers to a Unified Theory of Physics by Dennis Crossley

Dennis

3 Dimensional space is good idea.

I thinking about it many years.

See

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

Hi Dennis,

I enjoyed reading your interesting essay and agree with many of your conclusions. At a conceptual level, it has many similar ideas as covered in my essay, http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1488 and reports (ref 13 in the essay).

Let me comment on some of your statements:

1. Page 6, "The cosmic speed limit of c for the motion of matter is widely recognized, but no one has ever given a physical reason for why this speed limit exists." I suggest that, in electrons, the speed limit is due to the internal 'photonic' motion combined with helical motion.

2. Page 6, "if this simple conclusion is true, then we should expect to see transformations from one mode to the other, from light to matter and vice versa; and of course we do in the phenomena of particle creation." Yes, and this becomes natural when all particles (massive and photons) exhibit internal motion at the speed of light.

3. Page 8. "The simplest of these, representing the electron, is easiest to visualize. It is simply a circular path in space." See my essay for the same thought.

There are a few details on which we differ in thinking, but they are not important enough to list here.

Regards,

Ben Baten

Dear Dennis Crossley,

I enjoyed you essay and agree with your major premises. I particularly liked your statement, "'equivalence' really means equivalence" and I was unfamiliar with Reichenbach's explanation that F = 0 is simpler!

You ask how we might make progress toward a microscopic model of gravity. I suggest that to do such we must focus on local rotational aspects, ie, gravito-magnetic effects versus radial or gravito-electric gradients. This also has the desired result, from your perspective, of providing non-linear self-interacting action over small closed paths! It leads to soliton-like 'particles' of the type you propose.

While I agree that light is a mystery, I tend to also agree with Einstein that "there is no space empty of field" so I therefore tend to think of gravity as the least medium that is conceivable, versus the 'geometry' in which Reichenbach's F = 0.

Our conceptions thus differ somewhat on the surface, but we do agree on specific details: 1) 3D space is a dynamic continuum and 2) elementary particles are the result of non-linear self-interactions propagating around small closed paths. And I strongly agree with your take on the 'virtual particle' model of force in QFT, and on the non-sensical nature of strings.

Like you, I did not have space to develop the soliton-like 'particles' in my current essay, and I ask you to merely assume their existence. Based on such, I hope you will ready my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function, and I would very much appreciate any comments you might make. And since I think my model agrees with your theory, if you do like my model, I hope that you will give me an appropriate score.

Good luck in the competition,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

You may find the work of Art Hobson interesting, including, most recently, "There are no particles, there are only fields".

Peter Morgan

Dennis,

I could not believe how similar your ideas are to mine. I started with a premise like yours and I realized that if it was correct, it should be possible to show that all particles, fields and forces are made from the single building block of 4 dimensional spacetime. The first step was to define the characteristics that spacetime must possess in order to be this single building block. In this short post it is impossible to tell you all the exciting developments that have occurred in this pursuit over the last 10 years. I have written the draft of a book that is available for download here. This pursuit has resulted in not only a wave-based particle model, but this has also led to the derivation of the gravitational force from first principles. The most amazing part is that the gravity model developed from waves in spacetime not only yields the Newtonian gravitational equation, but it also makes other predictions about the relationship between gravity and the other forces. This has resulted in previously unknown equations relating the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force. These equations are the subject of my essay available here. These equations show the importance of the Compton wavelength in the generation of both the gravitational and electromagnetic forces of single particles. I would be interested in corresponding further with you on this subject if you are interested.

Hi Dennis,

You idea is to me highly reminiscent of the sketches of space-theory propounded by William Clifford 140 years ago:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Space-Theory_of_Matter

All the best,

Armin

Hi Dennis,

Great essay, clearly articulating the need to better define EM mass-ENERGY-Matter in our three dimensions before we leap to conclusions drawn from mathematical modelling alone.

Tetryonics agrees in many ways with the points you make in your essay but extends it one step further with the equilateral quantisation of all EM energies.

I hope you'll take a look and see how we compliment each others work in differing ways.Attachment #1: 1_Figure_38.10__WaveParticle_Probabilities_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: 3_EM__massENERGYMatter_800x600.jpg

Dear Dennis:

I enjoyed reading your well-written essay and the space-wave theory to resolve the current dilemma in physics. I have developed a similar approach that satisfies many of the features of the space wave theory proposed by you.

As you note in your paper - " ...This common speed for both matter and light suggests that they are two aspects of the same phenomenon, both modes of wave motion in the geometry of space. Indeed, if this simple conclusion is true, then we should expect to see transformations from one mode to the other, from light to matter and vice versa; and of course we do in the phenomena of particle creation (such as ! e+e􀀀) and particle-antiparticle annihilation." My paper - -" From Absurd to Elegant Universe" describes a mechanistic model of spontaneous transformation of matter to light and vice-versa to resolve many of the current paradoxes and singularities of GR and QM.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper. You can contact me at avsingh@alum.mit.edu.

Best of Luck and Regards

Avtar Singh

Dear Professor Crossley

I enjoyed reading your essay and firmly agree with the following views:

1- That the particle concept is false, and is the source of of the unphysical idea of quantum probability interpretation. I have discussed my views about this in my fqxi essay Fix Physics! . I have also described e/m as a spreading wave, but one in a lattice field, as described in Beautiful Universe Theory on which my fqxi paper is based.

I am happy to have introduced fqxi to Eric Reiter in whose essay he described his astounding experimental proof that the point photon idea is wrong!

2- That matter is a sort of wave (a soliton) but why nonlinear? My friend the late Gabriel laFrenier simulated spherical standing waves and believed that matter is only waves

3- That general relativity need not have been based on warped geometry. I did not quite understand the alternative of flat gravity . For my views about GR see my Beautiful Universe theory for the idea (originally Eddigton's) that gravity is simply due to deceleration in a density field of the vacuum with a gradient-index of refraction.

I wish you the best.

Vladimir

Dennis,

You are speaking of an expanding wave flowing through space-time? Are we at the center of a smaller wave, explaining the expanding in all directions? Are all the forces embedded in space-time? I would be interested in your thought on the nature of gravity which my essay discusses.

Jim

Dear Dennis,

Thanks for your essay. I find in your judgments many similar points with mine approach. I think it must be interesting for you. Please find time to check it.

Essay

I have appraised your work because you are on right way in mine view.

Regards,

George

Where are you Dennis?

Dennis

Excellent underlying 3D logic, and nicely written essay free of excessive technobabble. I was astonished to agree virtually each point you made with only the odd semantics to resolve. If you are about, I do hope you'll read my own essay, which uses the same foundations and finds classical physics from the quanta via logic. I think the mechanism is a massive step forward, but it still needs the sternest tests so do comment.

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Dennis Crossley,

I enjoyed your essay. I like the very clear way in which your essay is set out and the accessibility of the language.It is very relevant to the essay question and I like that you are giving what you consider better alternatives, with justification of those opinions, rather than just concentrating on the problems.

There is IMHO another important facet of reality that you have not considered in this essay, which is necessary to unify QM and space-time relativity. Nevertheless I like the very clear way in which you have talked about the problems that you regard as significant and their potential resolution. Good luck, Georgina.

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

Wow Dennis! I've been thinking the same most of my life. And you have a Phd to boot, so maybe the idea is coming out at last.

I studied Economics and Physics in my undergrad, then went into Architecture and have been a practicing Architect all my life with a "hobby" in Physics.

I was working on my grad project in architecture when my mentor said "get outside the box, get uncomfortable". I was reading "The Evolution of Physics" by Einstein and Infeld at the time and applied that advice to the MM 1887. So, everyone was being transmitted through space just as light was. Thus, I wondered what could be the wave function or form of matter that would exhibit relativity and QM. I tried various things and read up on attempts by Lorentz and then simply thought of a rotating (spinning) wave and it seemed to answer it all. I submitted it to various journals but it was contrary to current thinking. I had doubts because surely others must have thought about it. Even Dirac suggested an internal wave structure of spin. Anyway, you mentioned rotating (obviously in reference to spin) so I sure would like to know what you think about the classical Rotating Wave. See attached. Disregard derivation of Gkl - my latest version I think is correct not shown here. If the rotating wave model is the correct model of the fermion, then it's mass energy density tensor should be the same as the thermo dynamic model and one should thus be able to derive it from the model.

Thank you so much for your article.

Bill ChristieAttachment #1: 1_Rotating_Wave_Wavicle_-_Full_Article.pdf