Essay Abstract

In 1928 Paul Dirac factorised Schrodingers relativistic wave equation into complex plane waves that had a structure similar to Clifford algebra (complex quaternions). The importance of the Dirac equation cannot be disputed as it led to the prediction of spin and antimatter, both later confirmed by experiment, and provided the foundation for modern quantum physics. However, for the past 80 years no one has fully appreciated the significance of this solution. We can now show that these complex plane waves in three dimensional space are real waves, and from this foundation we can deduce the main equation of quantum physics and Einstein's relativity. Once we understand this then we are in a position to state precisely which of our physical assumptions are correct and incorrect.

Author Bio

Geoffrey Haselhurst is a natural philosopher - one who studies Nature and the universe. He lives quite isolated from society on the South West coast of Australia with his partner and two beautiful young daughters. For the past 20 years he has read on physics, philosophy, metaphysics, evolution, education, politics, etc., believing that we must know the truth about things if we are to think and act wisely (philosophy). He enjoys the freedom to pursue knowledge, free from customary beliefs and academic pressures to conform to existing beliefs that tend to blind us to obvious truths.

Download Essay PDF File

  • [deleted]

  • Post #2

Nicely done Geoff ... glad you could join the party ... but you did not mention Milo ... or did I miss it?

If you have the time, take a look at my essay. I extended Milo's thoughts to time. The scalar solutions are ... interesting:-)

Regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

    • [deleted]

    • Post #3

    That was a nice history, and some great reading about quaternions in general. Nice work.

      Hi Gary,

      Nice to see you here - have been meaning to write you to discuss quaternions, Dirac and the wave structure of matter (life is very busy with two young girls and I have just finished building house extensions - my new living room is also a projection room / movie theater as i plan on devoting a lot of my life to film making).

      I did reference Milo Wolff, his work deducing the de Broglie wave and relativistic mass increase due to Doppler shifting of the spherical in and out waves with relative motion [11]. I probably should have added an acknowledgement to Milo (he is like a second father to me, a very dear friend who has helped me enormously).

      I only heard about this essay contest the day before it closed so it was a bit rushed - there are lots more things I would like to have added if I had more space and time!

      Over the past year my mind has been thinking much more in terms of quaternions, how they explain spin due to vector / complex components of intersecting plane waves cancelling one another leaving a scalar spherical standing wave. Thus I cannot agree with Milo that spin is due to spherical rotation of the spherical in and out waves at the wave center, there is no need for this, and spin comes directly from deducing the Dirac equation as I outline in the essay.

      For those who wish to know more about Milo's contributions to WSM (which are enormous) I have loads on my website http://www.spaceandmotion.com/

      I read your essay, but as a philosopher rather than a mathematician I find it hard to follow your mathematical logic (sorry).

      In terms of metaphysics of WSM, it is clear to me that time is caused by the wave motion of space, it is not a real thing in itself. Thus your work on spherical time, to me at least, really means that matter is a spherical wave structure.

      Hope this helps explain things a bit better. Great to see other like minds here (I have great respect for what FQXi are trying to achieve by allowing 'dissident' views of physics to be discussed openly and honestly).

      Cheers,

      Geoff

      Thank you - quaternions are very cool and powerful maths - glad you appreciated it.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #6

      Agree regarding spin ... quaternions give the answer. Spin is a vector and Milo's work simply does not produce a vector. I've posted this paper and another (both with the Appendices) to viXra.org. There are some derivations that might be of inteest to you. You've gathered together a good collection of references ... a curious student will do the rest:-)

      Regarding spherical structures ... I am thinking that allowing each structure to have spherical time is equivalent to stating that each structure is a preferred frame of reference. Then when they are summed up into macroscopic objects, the time frame of the larger mass becomes controlling ... still fuzzy as to whether it has any meaning or is simply a mathematical game.

      Good Luck,

      Gary Simpson

      Houston, Tx

      • [deleted]

      • Post #7

      Dear Geoffrey Haselhurst,

      You wrote your essay in just one day. I will need more time as to carefully check how some striking discrepancies to my essays 1364 and 1548 can be resolved.

      Respectfully,

      Eckard

      Pentcho,

      1. The statement 'This is utter nonsense' has no validity in science without giving reasons.

      2. I posted a link to me essay on my facebook page, I have close to 3,000 friends there - people who like my website, find it a useful resource, appreciate my efforts as a philosopher trying to help our world with a bit of truth and sanity.

      It is not unreasonable that one of them liked my work here and ranked it ten, it is out of my control.

      3. Three, to insult my work as nonsense without evidence, and to insult my honesty without evidence is shameful on a philosophical / scientific forum.

      4. Feel free to list the things that I have written that are true, and that are false, and we can discuss them - based on reason and evidence from our senses (science).

      Geoff

      Gary,

      I was thinking about your essay this morning (to read about such fundamental things then go for a walk in the sunshine and nature (reality) and think about it. I greatly enjoyed it!

      One thing I was thinking was the same as you;

      "...still fuzzy as to whether it has any meaning or is simply a mathematical game."

      Good to have that awareness of the limitations of maths, but also their usefulness and logical exploratory power.

      So I really respect what you are doing, my maths is not good enough to quite grasp what it is saying.

      I wonder, does a spherical wave have a different time in different directions, and we could assume here that the spherical wave may have different velocities in different directions that are the cause of this. Thus maybe it is a better conception of time as a tool for measuring the change of 3D spherical waves, now that we better understand this internal structure of matter 'particles'.

      This is further confused by my understanding of Dirac, and these spherical waves are formed from plane waves flowing through space in all directions, their transverse (vector / complex) wave components cancelling to form these scalar / longitudinal spherical standing waves.

      Your work in this area sounds interesting - I will study it and try to understand it.

      Cheers and thanks,

      Geoff

      • [deleted]

      • Post #10

      That statement is, however, utter nonsense.

      Hello Geoffrey

      Thanks for your essay. Please excuse me for putting a spanner in the works, but it does not seem to depict the original theory with the most appropriate maths. This has a substantial bearing on interpretation and future progress.

      The point at issue is the algebra underlying Dirac's equation. At each point, this is the Clifford algebra of the metric on space-time. You write that it is "similar to Clifford algebra (complex quaternions)". This statement is unfortunately true - unfortunately, because it will lead future researchers astray.

      Point 1: it isn't just "similar to Clifford algebra". It really IS Clifford algebra.

      Point 2: by a chance quirk of algebra, it may well be that this particular Clifford algebra happens to be isomorphic to the complex quaternions, but this really is just a coincidence. Any such isomorphism will preserve the algebraic structure, but will lose the underlying geometry and motivation.

      Point 3: this matters. Dirac's original theory can be extended very easily to

      - curved space and Einstein's General Relativity

      - asymmetric metrics, via Hannabuss's extension of Clifford algebras, and it may thus provide a model of other real physical features such as perhaps the weak interaction.

      However, these extensions are ONLY apparent when the original GEOMETRIC origin of the algebra is kept obvious. If the algebra is treated as complex quaternions, or some other algebraic isomorph such as an exterior algebra, then they are lost.

      Please see my essay, (1366), for more details.

      Best wishes

      Alan H.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #12

        Uh ... complex quaternion algebra is Pauli algebra - not Dirac algebra.

          Dear Geoffrey ,

          I have read your essay and found it interesting. You have presented an entirely different perspective and that is important.

          You say, "what we call empty space is in fact full of waves". In your opinion, what are the physical properties of this empty space that facilitate the creation or propagation of waves in it? Which parameter is supposed to oscillate in these waves?

          As you know, with arbitrary assumptions we can build wonderful fantasies. But to come close to building a model of reality, we must use barest minimum of assumptions and such assumptions that are used must be plausible and compatible with physical reality. For this reason I think FQXi has chosen a most appropriate topic for this contest.

          Kindly read my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space". Do let me know if you don't get convinced about the invalidity of the founding assumptions of Relativity or regarding the efficacy of the proposed simple experiments for detection of absolute motion.

          Best Wishes

          G S Sandhu

          • [deleted]

          • Post #14

          Dear Pentcho,

          Regarding rankings, it is actually quite simple. I was the first person to rank the essay ... I was already familiar with Geoff's writings and I like the work and hope it will give the work of Milo Wolff greater exposure ... that said, 10 divided by 1 equals 10 ... sorry, no black cat here ... I acknowledge that some of the things written there are a little ... "soft" ... but I appreciate a philosophical point of view. It helps me to see more clearly.

          I sincerely hope I did not break any of the contest rules.

          Regards,

          Gary Simpson

          Houston, Tx

          Geoffrey,

          You came out of one roundabout on the correct road for the Quaternions, but down the road you missed the sign with the arrow saying This Way to Division Algebras. Maybe it was not your fault, for the boys with the gambling house try to get more traffic on their road by cutting the sign down. Check it out if you like.

          In all good fun,

          Rick

          5 days later

          • [deleted]

          • Post #16

          Geoffrey,

          Your "complex quaternion" reduction actually follows the Space Time of David Hestene's, EXCEPT, David never envokes any complex numbers. David's "i" has the geometric meaning of plane (an outer product). A plane is a simple entity and not too complex. This would hardly obey Wheeler's description of simple when you start at the premise with the word "complex!"

          Best regards,

          Tony

            • [deleted]

            • Post #17

            Dear Geoffrey,

            Your endeavour to explain whole of physics on a single assumption evokes interest on your article.You have dared to question eight of our fundamental assumptions of physics, where as I have dared to question only one assumption of physics as applied to micro world.To know this ,please,go through my article (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1543--Sreenath B N),and express your comments on it in my forum.

            Regards and good luck in the essay contest.

            Sreenath.

            10 days later

            • [deleted]

            • Post #18

            This essay does not offer anything new. Please read Leibniz, Whitehead 1906, Epperson 2004 and about a million other current quantum theorists like Zurek (2002. The rating for this essay is 'no shit sherlock.'

              • [deleted]

              • Post #19

              Geoffrey

              I have started reading your essay and think I'll like it. I had, earlier this year, sent in a response to a "Your Cosmology Hypothesis Invited" and it turned up on Google under "Cosmology Hypothesis". My ideas generally run afoul those of the Establishment.

              I'd be interested in any real arguments, but not in 'put downs' as these are a 'dime a dozen'.

              Jim

                • [deleted]

                • Post #20

                Geoffrey:

                In the above Post I should have mentioned that I am currently planning to correct errors and revise portions of the Google article.

                Jim