The Concept of Acceleration in the Quantum World Is Wrong by Sreenath B N

Sreenath N

Essay Abstract

Acceleration plays key role in solving the problem of Quantum-Gravity and that is why it has got to be redefined in the quantum world so as to formulate a consistent theory of quantum-gravity and set a plotform for merging general-relativity with quantum-mechanics.

Author Bio

Independent researcher on QG; interested in the fundamentals and philosophy of physics.

Download Essay PDF File

Benjamin Dribus

Dear B. N. Sreenath,

Interesting essay. A few questions come to mind.

1. As you know, acceleration is related to gravity in ordinary GR by the equivalence principle, and hence accelerated frames of reference are equivalent to frames in an appropriate gravitational field, at least locally. Now, does your quantized acceleration imply "quantized reference frames?" The reason I ask is because changes between frames of reference are usually understood in terms of continuous group transformations, and quantized reference frames would alter this. My own belief is that frames of reference are indeed quantized and that changes of reference frame are not really group transformations. I discuss this in my essay: On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics.

2. Are your field equations still intended to describe a manifold over the continuum, or is spacetime itself quantized in some way in your theory.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on these points. Take care,

Ben Dribus

[deleted]

Dear Ben Dribus,

Greetings and thanks for your lucid inquiry.

My answer to your first question is, 1) Quantized acceleration applies only to quantum (or micro) particles and not to classical test masses or bodies. In EVAF, the path described by both quantum particles and classical test masses or bodies is log spiral and it is a continuous path. So the motion of quantum particles and classical test masses can be explained on the basis of 'continuous reference frames' and if 'continuous group transformations' can explain EVAF, then it can be applied. However, for quantum particles the reference frames may be treated as being quantized and accordingly energy transitions can be explained. To this continuous group transformations cannot be applied.

To your second question, my answer is; Quantized acceleration, for quantum particles, is equivalent to quantum of energy but this does n't mean that space-time itself is quantized. It is true that the field equations describe a manifold over the continuum, because the path described is a continuous one.

I have a glimpse of your article and I like your approach towards solving the problems and as soon as I go through it in detail, I surely express my opinions.

Best regards and good luck in the essay competition.

Sreenath B N.

Benjamin Dribus

Thanks... I'll look forward to seeing your remarks. Take care,

Ben

Sreenath N

Dear Benjamin,

I am extremely sorry for the delay in replying to your query. I am glad to know that you have your original way of looking at the fundamental problems of physics and surprised to learn that you suspect too many basic assumptions of physics where as I consider as wrong only one basic assumption. On the basis of your 'causal metric hypothesis', you have tried to explain, in a novel way, the origin of the classical concepts of space-time and also the role of space and time in the quantum world. On the basis of 'causal metric hypothesis' you have attempted to unify both GR and QM leading to the theory of QG. I am also interested in knowing how you account for the appearence of continuous manifolds on the basis of 'discrete reference frames'.

Anyway, you have put too much thought in to the problems facing physics and wish you succeed in solving them in one stroke on the basis of 'causal metric hypothesis'. I rate your essay high because of its originality and want to know how you feel about mine.

Good luck and best regards,

Sreenath.

Jayakar Joseph

Dear Sreenath,

As the tetrahedral-brane, expressional in Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe is quantization, the gravity that is the tensor product of the eigen-rotational string is also quantised with the eigen-rotational cycle of that string that is transformational as tetrahedral-brane.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Sreenath N

Dear Jayakar,

Thanks for your courtesy call and as soon as I go through your essay I will respond.

Best wishes,

Sreenath

[deleted]

Dear Sreenath,

Gravity is the inherent nature of the space-time fabric as in GR (duality) and pulls on things in that fabric accordingly. Yes gravity gets twisted along with the space-time inside the black hole (moment of death) and hence EVAF as you have beautifully explained. Space-time is the inherent nature of the conscience (singularity) and hence the realization that there is no more gravity to the realized one who experiences singularity as it is everywhere (immortality or nirvana or enlightenment or moksha).

Yes indeed, the singularity that I am referring to is the Advaita experience of Adi Shankaracharya.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Sreenath N

Dear Sridattadev,

Thanks for your kind comments.The system of philosophy you are following i.e., Advaitha is closely related to science, especially to physics, as current trend in physics is to unify all basic interactions (forces) in to one. Infact my last year's essay started with the word 'Advaitha".

Warm regards,

Sreenath.

[deleted]

Dear Sreenath,

Science is about the details of a system as you are trying to desribe, spirituality is the essence of the entire cosmos as in Advaitha philosophy. We can choose to be the mechanic (scientist) or the driver (spiritual being) of a vehicle or even better both at the same time. Wisdom is to enjoy the ride safely.

You are most welcome and I wish you all the best with your work.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Sreenath N

Dear Sridattadev,

It is enlightening to know that you have adopted Advaithist Vedanthik view in life. Accordingly there is only one Reality and that is Brahman, 'The Cosmic Consciousness' and the rest are subservient to the realization of that Reality.

Thanks for your enlightening view.

warm regards,

Sreenath.

pjackson

Sreenath

Gravity as a torsion field and spiral morphology, but quantized, are certainly original and I think have some good strengths over other models. I think your work is undervalued.

Have you seen the (translating toroid) helix or 'twin spiral model of Kingley-Nixey, equivalent to my twin vortex torus, which is also torsion based, as the em field spirals around the tubular 'body'. (last Fig). He also well covers my frame boundary condition with his Fig 2. interpretation of ion shocks. Do let me know what you think, or I'll check on his blog.

My original post to you spiralled off into cyberspace instead of sticking, and I've only just noticed.

Well done.

Best of luck.

Peter

Sreenath N

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your encouraging comments on my essay. But I am not seeing the figures you are talking of in my forum. It might not have been posted properly. Please send them soon so that I will have a look at them.

BTW, my QG field describes log spiral path but not helical path due to some specific reasons.If your twin vortex torus is equivalent to my log (or conical)spiral,then both are same. Where do I find the 'twin spiral model of Kingley-Nixey'? Please give me the link to that article.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best of luck.

Sreenath.

pjackson

Sreenath

The path is helical, but from a translating 'soliton', so effectively a twin vortex, the two 'cones' when turned back on themselves forming a torus. (Two rotating bipoles translating will then also form the structure of DNA)

The figures I refer are all in this essay, http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1448 consistent with mine and not only showing the 'tapered corkscrew', but in his Fig 2, the actual experimental results from the Cluster probes showing and correctly re-interpreting the frame transition ('LT') mechanism I describe at REAL inertial frame boundaries implementing local CSL.

Peter

Sreenath N

Dear Hai,

Thanks for your interesting query. You have confused between 'mass' and 'weight'. A test mass or body as described by classical physics can have both mass and weight.The mass of the same body will have different weights on Earth and Moon because weight (w) is related to mass (m) by the equation w = mg, where 'g' is the surface gravity of Earth or Moon. Since there is difference in the values of surface gravity of Earth and Moon its (bodies) weight accordingly varies but not its mass.

For micro (quantum) particles only the concept of mass is used but not the concept of weight.So you cannot apply the concept of weight to the Higg's boson. So whether the Higg's boson is on Earth or on moon its mass remains the same.

My article is about the concept of acceleration in the micro-world and this concept will not apply to classical- world and hence to classical bodies. It applies only to quantum particles and,as I have said in my article,it (acceleration) is 'quatized' in the micro world and is equivalent to 'quantum of energy'.I have given experimental proof for it too. So it need not be taken for granted.

If your problem is not solved, please,respond once again.

I will go through your article soon and respond.

Best regards and good luck in the essay contest.

Sreenath

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.

Sergey Fedosin