Alternative Models of Reality

So this is the place for my "own novel physics theory or model." Alternative Model of Reality thread or Cosmology? Which is most proper? Both fit, that is certain.

Well, strictly speaking this proposed model is not my own, as most of it has been presented in detail by others and just a small portion which brings it all together is truly novel. But this change in perspective makes a big difference if one would like to fully understand any one or more of several big mysteries in physics.

Very, very simple in most respects. But so difficult for most to grasp. This "Alternative model" is a little like an optical illusion where you see one thing but the second image is difficult to find and lock in your mind's eye for more that an instant. Most of us know many things and if what we know conflicts in some way with something new then the new view can be difficult to see; we may be stuck with seeing only the older vision.

Should, what you the reader knows to be true, conflict with what I know then you may wish to save time and energy by reading and working with ideas that are compatible with your present views of "Reality" and "Cosmology." As an example, if your friend has a deep conviction that the past and future are out there somewhere and someday someone will figure out how to zip to and fro in history, please don't refer him here as I do not need to see his wonderful proof that time travel is just around the corner; you see, I know that time travel is out of the question. On the other hand if you are determined to travel faster than light, that is OK with me as I do not know that it will always be impossible for anything to exceed the speed of light. And I will not challenge your desire to find a way to do so.

Waves or particles? Do you favor one of the two, waves or particles? You know the old wave-particle duality question. Well if you have a serious bias then you should get lost or at least take a break and catch a nap or have a snack because you will have trouble when I explain why we can not have one without the other. You see it is a bit like looking at a painting of sunlight streaming down through trees that seem to surround you with more and more trees deeper in a dark forest -- until you see the eyes and a jungle of animals; and then the trees disappear. If you think that you may be able to see both the animals and the trees then come along.

But be warned if the big bang is sacred to you and your tribe. Then you may zone out when this possibility occurs ("a big bang isn't really necessary after all"). Now, there are a lot of trip wires that keep us locked in our present view of the world and the universe beyond. Even as we try to see beyond our present limits. One very small point can stop you cold and all the more so if you have devoted a lifetime to one approach.

The "problem advice" that I have heard most often? "Well, if it was that easy someone would have thought of it before. And a lot of smart people have tried and they didn't think it was so simple--and besides -- that would mean that--" (a pet notion) "--is out the window."

Still with me? Then let's go for it. Just volume filled with charge. No time to start with, it falls out later. Space filled with charge. Nothing but charge. And only one kind of charge, please. The volume of the universe filled with charge means pressure and that means energy. The bits of charge cannot be still, that arrangement would result in a greater pressure and require greater energy and increased order to attain this stillness. These bits of charge move and are synchronized with the universe of moving charge surrounding them. This universal structure of charge and it's motion are the origin of "space-time" and everything in the universe and the regulator of time and all interactions.

These bits of charge are each a fraction of the charge of an electron. Let us say 1/3 the charge of an electron. These bits are basically locked in place, they can not just wander around, as they are surrounded and repelled by like acting bits of charge. But they can and must oscillate in three dimensional space while hemmed in by surrounding neighbors. This motion presents an effective shape that packs more tightly.

That is it. That is all you need. Everything else is made up of these bits of charge. One or more bits can be forced out of place if enough energy is applied, So we can say 3 bits forced out of place will result in production of an electron and a positron (the 3 now vacant holes in the structure.) Note the energy needed to displace 3 bits of charge compared to that needed to remove only one bit. So the nature of quarks and electrons results from how 1, 2 or 3 displaced bits move through the structure of space made of charge locked in place by a universal pressure. And the spaces left vacant in sets of 1, 2 or 3 move in near perfect symmetry; reflected by the structure of space.

The question of unequal matter and antimatter is no more!

I would like to talk about some of my old theories. Associated with my theories there were a lot of dishonest things done by a lot dishonest people. There is a lot of corruption associated with physics. I guess most people are bad. Around 1990 I talked about some of my theories on the internet using sci physics. 1 of my theories was how does gravity get out of a black hole and the answer was 1 of my theories gravitons are tachyons. Around 1990 I said to George that I thought gravity, electric fields and magnetic fields are tachyons. George said some thing like if gravitons are tachyons gravitons have negative momentum and that can explain attraction created by gravity. It is probably true George was the first person to explain attraction created by forces. George was working on a BS degree for physics at Old Dominion University. I guess he got a degree around 1993. He was part of U.S. air force. When I put my theories on the internet a person on the internet said some thing like if gravity waves move at the speed of light how do gravity waves get out of a black hole. If gravity waves do not get out of a black hole there can be a lot of trouble like how does time and space have the right shape that is associated with the black hole. A lot of dishonest people did a lot of dishonest things like not give credit to people who came up with the theories. There is a lot more to the story. There are a lot more theories. There are a lot more dishonest things. I will try to talk about this at a different time.

Dear Steve Agnew,

Your paper Matter Time, Aethertime continuously raises questions for me throughout it:

First, I am interested in your reasoning for substituting the word matter sometimes in place of mass and sometimes referring to objects commonly called matter. Is this accurate? Has the property of mass been elevated to the status of the source of the rest of the properties of matter? What is mass?

Second, "Since time and matter determine relative velocity, energy is equivalent to matter and aethertime is naturally Lorentz invariant the Cartesian continuous space, motion and time." Your apparent adoption of ":"... energy is equivalent to matter ..." without deriving it from "aethertime" theory appears to be your basis for concluding that "... aethertime is naturally Lorentz invariant ..." Is the theory of Relativity a given in your work?

That's enough to see if it should continue.

Mass is a property of an object as kg while matter is what makes up the universe and includes aether as well as matter objects. The probability distribution of a wavefunction is not dimensionless but has an amplitude and phase whose norm is mass. All properties of matter objects derive from just two constants; a matter action constant hae = h/c2 in kg s and the aether particle mass mae, which therefore defines a universe pulse time, Tu = mae / hae = 13.4 Byrs.

Mass-energy equivalence is the foundation of aethertime and so aethertime shows the same Lorentz invariance and has many of the features of GR; time and space dilation, lensing, gravity waves, and so on. However, there are aspects of aethertime that have no meaning in GR. A second time dimension, for example, emerges from aethertime that provides an absolute time scale for the universe.

Aethertime matter decay is a constant and does not vary in different frames of reference and therefore this second time dimension provides an absolute arrow for time, which is different from GR. With a universal decoherence time, a spacecraft velocity relative to the CMB can now be measured from inside. There is still no absolute direction in aethertime, but the CMB velocity is what defines the speed of light and c does therefore vary over universe time. This does not affect MEE, but it does mean that the galaxy red shift is actually due to galaxy age and not expansion and aethertime universe shrinks and does not expand.

Aether matter and action have both amplitude as well as phase and yet quantum phase has no meaning in GR. Black holes are not aethertime singularities since it is only atomic time and space that end at an event horizon. The spin or angular momentum of a black hole is where the information of its matter resides and black holes are just where all matter eventually ends up in aethertime.

There is a new term in the virial theorem in addition to KE and PE. This term comes from an orthogonal force between two stars from their radiation mass losses that couples the motion of inner and outer galaxy stars. Inner star KE moves to outer star KE and so galaxies rotate at constant velocities without the need to invoke any dark matter halo.

So unlike GR, there are quantum gravity exchange effects, gravity matterisms, due to matter phase and amplitude that are kind of like magnetism is to electricity. Just like their are two manifestations of charge since a flow of charge generates a magnetic action orthogonal to static charge attraction, in QG the luminance of a two stars generates a gravity action orthogonal to the static gravity attraction of matter.

Although quantum gravity matterism forces are very small for our solar system, they play a role proportional to luminance. For example, the sun couples to Procyon and 61-Cygni at 11.4 lyrs to give the sunspot cycle, star clusters at 100's of lyrs like the BY Draconis starspot cycles, galaxies at tens of thousands of lyrs with constant rotation, and galaxy clusters at millions to billions of lyrs that line up as filaments.

Steve Agnew,

"Mass-energy equivalence is the foundation of aethertime ..." Ok, this is empirically supported. One can measure mass, force and distance directly from empirical evidence and work from E=MCC to f=ma, etc. So I see that it isn't a given, but rather an empirically justified starting point. What does seem to be a given is the idea adopted from Relativity theory that time and space can be manipulated. I know of no empirical evidence for effects suffered by either space or time or effects caused by either space or time. However, when time, in particular, is theoretically identified as the measure of object behavior such as, I think, your "... aethertime is a discrete matter exchange along with a decoherence rate. ..." does. If time is said to be a measure of object activity, then that kind of time will be subject to time-dilation.

When I offer explanations as I have done above, their purpose is not to debate, but rather are offered as targets to be set straight by your explanations that follow. I find your explanations to be very helpful. I will be spending additional time either identifying 'givens' or learning that they are empirically justified foundations for your theory. Afterwards, I would hope to be able to ask good questions about your derivations. Based upon the content of my first message, does this seem worth your time?

I find it very useful to engage in discussions about aethertime. Aethertime is not yet disproven, but I do keep looking for ways to disprove it and welcome measurements that would disprove aethertime.

The key is in the decay of the fine structure constant at 0.26 ppb/yr, which mainstream science has shown repeatedly can only vary by at most 1e-15/yr. My analysis shows that since science actually measures alpha^2 and not alpha, there is a phase factor that explains why only second order variations occur.

If there is something wrong with my argument about alpha, aether decoherence cannot be correct. The gyromagnetic ratio is the most precisely known constant and QED shows that electron self energy is what makes that prediction so precise. There is no self energy in GR gravity, but quantum gravity does have the same self energy and therefore the gyromagnetic ratio shows up in the quantum gravity deflection of starlight.

Once again, if there is anything wrong with these arguments about the aether decoherence rate, aethertime cannot be right. Soon there will be the precision that will validate or invalidate aethertime. Measurements in space at L1 by Lisa Pathfinder, for example, do have the precision if done over at least a year. The new watt balance should show mass decay but it will take a decade of measurements.

The new James Webb telescope will operate in an L2 halo orbit and will therefore be able to measure aether decoherence rate. So for better or worse, the great aether divergence is on the horizon...

Steve Agnew,

"The key is in the decay of the fine structure constant ..." What is the effect upon the hydrogen atom?

Since the Schrödinger equation is the basis of aethertime, the hydrogen atom spectrum is not changed, but does change very slowly in aethertime. The Schrödinger equation simply makes the time derivative of a wavefunction proportional to itself with a phase factor of pi/2.

Even as hydrogen mass slowly decays in aethertime, the hydrogen spectrum slowly blue shifts at the same rate...0.26 ppb/yr. The blue shift of hydrogen over time is what gives science the illusion that the universe expands from the big band when in fact, the universe shrinks from the CMB creation.

The resonance of an electron and proton gives the charge spectrum of hydrogen. Although the spacetime wavefunction is dimensionless, the aether wavefunction has dimensions of mass amplitude, or sqrt(m). This means that the hydrogen atom is also in resonance with the aether universe and there is a gravity spectrum for hydrogen bonded to the universe that complements its charge spectrum.

A simple manifestation of the gravity spectrum of hydrogen is two hydrogen atoms orbiting each other beyond the limit of dipole-induced dispersion bonding, which goes as 1/r^6 and so is much stronger than gravity which goes as 1/r until some r > {3/4 ER alpha2 / GmH2]}1/5. Two hydrogen atoms form a gravity bond by the complementary exchange of two photons and the mass defect that forms is therefore always bonding, just like dispersion is always bonding.

It is the complementary exchange of two photons as a biphoton that makes gravity seem classical and gives spacetime the illusion of space and time and therefore GR dilation. The gravity waves of two hydrogen atoms have very long wavelength and very low frequency and the hydrogen orbits are very Newtonian and therefore very classical. Once the two hydrogens get closer than some r, dipole-induced dispersion forces begin to dominate and the gravity spectrum merges with dispersion.

Dispersion forces are called tidal or dielectric at the macro scale, but dispersion defines the boundary between classical and quantum causality. The glue that holds the universe together is then the very slow decay of matter and concomitant and very slow growth of force over universe time.

This makes so much sense that it is surprising that so many very smart people have missed it, especially Dirac...but also Feynman. Einstein was never into quantum at all, so it is no mystery that he missed matter decay. But I am actually certainly not even as smart as any of these guys, I just happen to know spectroscopy very well and I like completing the quantumspectrum of hydrogen with both dispersion and gravity. This then completes the quantum matter spectrum of the universe as well.

Around 1990 using sci physics on the internet I talked about the Doppler effect of forces - all forces do not have a Doppler effect. It is probably true I was the first person to say this. If a person moves toward a star they will not see a different amount of gravity as compared to not moving. This is true for all forces. The same is true for anti gravity, gravity waves and anti gravity waves. The speed of gravity influences a lot of things like the direction of gravity and how strong gravity is. Gravity travels at an almost infinite speed. Gravity is straight to all things in the universe. If gravity moves at the speed of light how strong gravity is far from the center of a galaxy changes with directions - a galaxy is moving - stars far from the center of the galaxy in the direction that is galaxy is moving is different as compared to most stars. Years after I put these theories on the internet I saw a book written by James Constant called Gravitational Action - I think he said gravitons are tachyons. I think he wrote the book around 1978. Gerald Feinberg wrote a book called What is the world made of - He said some thing like the negative energy of strong force decreases the mass of protons and neutrons when they are part of a nucleus. Any force that is attractive has negative energy. Gravitons are tachyons and they have negative energy. Gravity decreases mass like strong force. Kurt Stocklmeir

Around 1990 using sci physics on the internet I said time and space are tachyons - if there was not time and space positive energy particles would have infinite energy - any thing that decreases energy of positive energy particles is negative energy - shape of time and space create forces because of this. All of this may help to let information go between different universes - this is 1 of my old theories it could be true there are worm holes all through space virtual particle anti particle gets around worm hole 1 of the particles go through the worm hole the particles separate if 1 of the particles go to a different universe use entanglement to send information. Tom van Flander said gravity moves more fast than light. He did a lot of important things associated with gravity. He wrote a book called Dark Matter Missing Planets and New Comets - he talked about a lot of good information like how far gravity travels. Kurt Stocklmeir

The aim being after all to unify the quantum mechanic and the general relativity.If we insert the spherical 3D volumes.We have a road permitting to unify all in fact, the quantum mechanic, the dark matter and the Black Holes.If we consider that this dark matter can be inserted for the curvature of our space time, we see a natural spherisation with quantum 3D sphères and cosmological 3D sphères and their spherical volumes.This gravitation appears when we conside this matter not baryonic and quantum BHs and BHS.This weakest quantum force is in the same time the strongest due to spherons and quantum BHs.

I have remarked in all humility that many works trying to explain this weakest forcewas about the fact to consider this gravitation like an emergent electromagnetic force.Kauza Klein,works of Connes, works about strings witten,Lubos Motl or the loop or this or that....all these mathematical works make a main error in considering this gravitation like electromagnetic photonic.

This gravitation needs a simple universal explaination after all,elegant and respecting the newtonian proportions.They turn so they are these sphères after all, ......gravitation, sphères, rotations are linked universaly speaking.

regards

I want to contribute to this conversation by submitting this paper which I think largely extends Richard's ideas on the oscillatory component of the structure of spacetime.

- view attachment for direct download

- or this page on Academia.edu, for those interested in further interaction.

Title: Quanto-Geometric Tensors and Operators on Unified Quantum-Relativistic Background

I take this opportunity to say thanks to Zeeya for offering and maintaining this board, a great place for alternative physics. At this time when mainstream physics is deeply shaken, physics can very much use so-called "outsiders"'s views. When expressed with coherence and in agreement with the fundamental laws of conservation, they are no less "respectable" than anybody else's. Good writing and good thinking everyone!

Hello Georgina.

I have read your paper for the most part and waded over your website. Although you have clearly put a lot of thoughts in this construction, it is calling for improvements in many ways.

1.- It is not clear what is the problem that you are solving. Thus it is hard to assess what is the contribution you are putting on the table.

2.- The paper needs to be more argumentative than declarative. In each section, I would suggest posing the problem first, then educate the reader on your views and methods, and then make it clear what your solution is.

3.- You may have to makeup your mind if this is a physics paper or a philosophy of physics or epistemology paper. If the former, it is good to have equations show up throughout, they are good stuff because they constrain your mind in a rigorous manner. If the latter, then I would do an awful more work with the illustrations, putting them in the middle of the content as appropriate.

4.- The illustrations are too dense and of difficult interpretation. They are not really helping the text in my sense. I would heavily break them down to simple schematics and multiply them throughout the text.

5.- You may find that you could be better off breaking this material into several papers. Your content has the structure of a book: when you have so much to put under a section, the content would do better under a breakdown per Chapter instead. But you may not have enough material for a book. But your blocks are definitely too dense.

6.- When making historical references in the text, don't assume that the reader knows the story under a term or a certain nomenclature. Your reader may or may not know. So be sure to explain what the story is.

7.- When all that is done, I suggest that you review your abstract and make it as appealing and true to content as you can. Remember that the abstract (and title) is your pitch to get readers, if unappealing you may get no readers.

But I congratulate you for your work anyway. You have done a lot of mentation. The reason why we have so many serious problems of interpretation in physics is because physicists have always been too reliant on math in order to show their genius while being highly deficient in philosophical mentation. Keep going!

Hi Anonymous,

thank you so much for your feedback

"It does what it says on the tin". I think the abstract on vixra does very clearly explain what it is about. I have put it in the history and philosophy section on vixra.

Thanks for many helpful suggestions, especially 2. I apologize the web site needs tidying and improving. Its good to know someone has visited it.

Hi Anon,

The Venn diagram is showing something distinct from just ordinary set theory. The material objects and physical information are ordinary objects within sets but the objects within the image reality, space-time, are a distinct category of objects, (that are really images, only considered to be objects.) The foundational reality is uni-temporal , it doesn't have a time dimension but is continually changing , so there is passage of time. Using this structure as a framework allows physics with Newtonian like time and Einstein's relativity to work together without contradiction, and the temporal paradoxes are dispelled. I have added to the site the links to the two essays that are on viXra now, with their abstracts.

Steve Dufourny - Tom van Flander was nice. I guess a lot of people insulted him because he said gravity moves more fast than light. Tom van Flander talked a lot about gravity in his book. Kurt Stocklmeir

Hello Mr Stoocklmeir,

Thanks for sharing this.I beleive also that he is right,I d like to see his reasonings, it seems relevant,it seems evident indeed that this gravity moves faster than light.It tends even to infinity.Could you please explain his reasonings a little ? It seems relevant,

best regards

Around 1990 using sci physics on the internet I said time and space are negative energy tachyons. Time and space vibrate a lot more fast than light - because of this particles can move on paths that are straight and particles do not have a change of energy. I said all spin 1 particles are tachyons, all tachyons have spin 1 and all forces are tachyons. I said there is attraction and repulsion between electric fields because electric fields emit forces - the forces move more fast than electric fields. The same is true for magnetic fields. I said all positive energy particles are made up of tachyons. I said all the vacuum is tachyons. I said all of the universe is negative energy. I said all of the universe is imaginary negative not certainty. There are not any complete measurements - after a measurement there is only not certainty. Kurt Stocklmeir

Tom van Flandern, not Flander. Vlaanderen extends from Seeland in the Netherlands to the French Department Nord. Gravity is a mutual relation that might indeed not propagate.

++++