Physical Reality - On Dirac, Quaternions and the Wave Structure of Matter in Space by Geoffrey Haselhurst

Gurcharn Sandhu

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]

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

Rick Lockyer

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

[deleted]

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

Geoffrey Haselhurst

Hi Tony,

Simple = One substance, space, exists, infinite and eternal, and has transverse plane waves propagating through it in all directions.

Complex = There are four solutions where the transverse wave oscillations cancel forming scalar spherical (ellipsoidal) standing waves, the two spin states of the electron and opposite phase positron. And with a frequency of 10^20 Hz and around 10^40 of these potentially forming in a cubic meter of space, well its gets very complicated!!

I have read a bit of Hestene's work over the past month (thanks). His geometric algebra / spacetime algebra is equivalent to complex quaternions, and yes, as I explained in the essay the complex numbers i, j, k, are used to represent three orthogonal planes.

It is interesting that he makes the comment that it is surprising that the great physicists of early 20th century never realised the geometry inherent in the Dirac equation.

What is more surprising is that no one seems to realise why. My essay explains this, because intersecting complex plane waves in 3D space can form scalar spherical standing waves, the spherical (ellipsoidal) geometry of matter, and central to Einstein's relativity.

Cheers,

Geoff

[deleted]

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.

[deleted]

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]

I think part of Geoffreys point is that it has been an obvious solution for some time.

[deleted]

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

Geoffrey Haselhurst

Do you have a link to essay?

Cheers,

Geoff

[deleted]

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

[deleted]

Dear Geoffrey Haselhurst,

my congratulations, your essay manifests how elegantly one can overcome with at least two fundamental assumptions!

Why could de Broglie and Schrödinger not defeat the Kopenhagen interpretation with your arguments?

And the same for the light-speed limit; - I am delighted that with your glance on it, it vanishes entirely and the most beautiful interference pattern of matter becomes evident.

Will it complete your picture, if I suggest to take the quaternionic approach also to make the notion of "time" as 4D reality plausible?*

Best wishes!

Renate Quehenberger

*) http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1524

[deleted]

Hi Geoff,

Thanks for your comments on my Essay, I will try to find time to respond to them soon. I have read your essay briefly & given you a high Community rating. Again I will try to find time to give it more attention...

Regards,

Declan Traill

Geoffrey Haselhurst

Hi Declan,

Seems our young daughters take a lot of our 'free time' (which is important!). I have had good intentions to reply to posts above - hopefully over the next few days.

I would really appreciate your careful thought and comments on my comments to you and on my essay - I think we are closing in on a complete simple sensible description of physical reality - exciting times!!

Geoff

[deleted]

Geoff,

That is a very interesting and concise view of major issues. I can't say I can verify every aspect, but it certainly matches alot of what I see as the direction needed to resolve these problems. There is one additional misconception I would add though. Action creates the effect of time, but we experience it as sequence and physics emphasizes sequence by treating it as a measurement issue between events, rather than a change of configuration. For example, the earth doesn't travel that narrative dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. This makes time an emergent effect of action, similar to temperature. In terms of waves, time is frequency and temperature is amplitude.

I go into much of this is in my own entry. Much of what I write about is the psychology of how something this basic gets overlooked, but sequence is foundational to experience and rationality, so it can be a significant filter to look through. In fact, it seems the more educated the person I point this out to, the more resistant they are to considering it. It really does require stepping back from one's own train of thought for it to really be appreciated.

One would think that if time were a vector from past to future, a faster clock would travel into the future more rapidly, but the opposite is true. Since it ages/burns faster, it travels into the past more quickly. Remember that in the twins thought experiment, the one in the faster frame has died, by the time her twin in the slowed frame has returned, so with every passing day, her life recedes further into the past.

[deleted]

I enjoyed the article. I think it is progressively compelling and logical in its presentation and conclusions.

As a lay person without the advantage of the Math background I found it simplified enough to follow and appreciate!

Good job

Geoffrey Haselhurst

Thanks Craig - nice comment - very much appreciated!

Cheers!

Geoff

Geoffrey Haselhurst

Hi Renate,

Thanks for your comments.

I read your article. I do not understand though, what the problem is with three dimensional space, where time (and matter) are caused by wave motions of this space.

This is the simplest conception of physical reality, and from this foundation of complex plane waves flowing through space in all directions you can deduce, with complex quaternion wave equations, that there are four solutions where the transverse (vector / complex) wave components cancel resulting in a scalar spherical standing wave (the wave center is the matter 'particle').

This perfectly deduces the Dirac equation, thus spin and anti-matter (opposite phase standing waves).

Once you have this foundation you can then deduce the rest of modern physics.

So I see no need for higher dimensions, and Occam's razor precludes this.

Sorry if I sound too absolute - meant kindly and sincerely!

Geoff

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

Geoffrey Haselhurst

Hi Alan,

Thanks for your comment.

In your essay you write;

"• The underlying mathematical language used to describe GR is the language of smooth

curved surfaces, using the "real" numbers, IR. There is nothing in Einstein's original

account of GR which lets a physicist "add" two states of space-time.

By contrast

• The language of SM is that of algebra over the "complex" numbers, C, using functions

on a ﬂat space."

The reason for this is that complex numbers in quantum theory relate to the transverse wave components of the plane waves in 3D space. The scalar / real numbers relate to how matter is formed, where there are four solutions where these transverse waves cancel producing scalar spherical standing waves (the two spin states of the electron and its opposite phase positron). This is the spherical (ellipsoidal) geometry of matter found in GR.

I did not understand your comments about complex quaternions and Geometry. Apparently Clifford called his complex quaternions 'Geometric Algebra', and David Hestenes uses this term, there is no loss of geometry in using them.

Hope this helps (and sorry for very late reply!)

Cheers,

Geoff

PS - You will also find Declan Traill's essay interesting, it shows a deduction of Einstein's GR based on Euclidean space assuming the velocity of light varies with the energy density of space (waves in space are non-linear).

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1363

Geoffrey Haselhurst

No.

All three algebras are isomorphic.

The complex quaternions are the correct mathematics to use, as they are the correct mathematics for describing transverse plane waves in 3D space (this space we all experience existing in!).

« Previous Page Next Page »