Alternative Models of Reality

Hi AL,

I took a quick look. There is a serious issue with Special relativity, which is not differentiating what's observed from that which has material existence independently of observation. I have shown the categorization error in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by A. Einstein. I have also shown a similar error in the light clock thought experiment, which was given in support of Special relativity. It would be a shame to give up on existent realty and be left just with the products of our senses and measurements. Not the right direction to go in my opinion.

Thee right Time. Georgina Woodward ISBN-13 : 979-8746900777 publisher kindle. Paperback available in USA via Amazon.com

Hi Al,

you seems to search answers and it is the most important. I have read your blog, all this is general. I am going to explain my opinion. Like I said the standard model is not complete but we have well evolved. The problem that we have actually is philosophical also about the real origin of the universe and what are the foundamental mathematical and physical objects and why they create these fields, topologies, geometries, matters of our ordinary matter.

The special relativity for me is just a tool for this universe , the photons before to be encoded in a kind of coded space vacuum of the DE have these properties, so we have c , and we have also the general relativity correlated and the einstein fields equations. The photons are just in my model a fuel, they permit the electromagnetic forces , the heat and the fact to observe because they are quanta of light . The bosons for me emerge due to these phtons encoded in our standard model giving due to the number and their motions oscillations these bosonic fields.

There is nothing of really odd with the special relativity. The real big question is this philosophical and ontological origin of our reality, of our standard model and the topologies, geometries correlated. Many consider only this general relativity like primoridal essence and these photons from a big bang and due to the works of witten, they have considered strings oscillating inside them in 1D connected with a 1D main cosmic field of this general relativity, so with different geometrical algebras like Lie, hopf, clifford, they rank the fields and consider that all come from these fields.

The general relativity is a different intepretation than newton for the gravitation, for newton it is a force at slow velocities between mass, for eisntein it is for observations and is a curvature of the space time at high velocities. Both were right. The standard model is made of fermions and vectors bosons and I believe strongly that all is made of particles , the waves and fields are emergent in my reasoning. The fact that this space vacuum of the DE possesses the main codes and is made of finite series of 3D spheres for me merging with the two fuels , the photons and the cold dark matter solve many actual problems and we can rank and go farer in this standard model with the good mathematical partitions.

All seems made of particles in a kind of superfluidity where all is in contact when you consider speciifc series of spheres where a kind of space disappears , it is due to volumes . The stabdard model has been proved to be correct and we need to complete it , of course we have different interpretations of the quantum mechanics but there is like a pure universal determinism. The postulate of einstein are important but are just a part of the puzzle and we must superimpose for me this vacuum of the DE and the cold dark matter and consider particles to reach the unknowns. I wish you all the best in your model, but like all models we are obliged to prove our assumptions with rigourous mathematical proofs, best Regards

Georgina Woodward

Thank you for reviewing my post. Second, I agree with you totally that what is observed and what is, are two different things. At least that is what I think you meant. Your comment, "It would be a shame to give up on existent realty and be left just with the products of our senses and measurements." I think that is a travesty. I think that is going on now because some cannot get out of the box. I have observed that sometimes when people "teach" SR or provide samples of applying the theory, they include an SR property in their "lesson" instead of what some observer might simply see. That is, they use an omniscient point of view to make their case. And I agree, there are paradoxes that seem to render SR illogical. I believe this is due to not understanding what SR is. In my little pitch, I attempted to show the frailty of math. That has often been a question at FQXi. I believe having a correct understanding of SR will explain so called paradoxes but will explain what the standard model is. Note what I have said, the proposed model will lead to an explanation of what the standard model is. I am battling logic that was formed 2000 years ago. I do not expect to win but I am like the mouse giving the finger to the hawk sweeping down.

I plan to review the two issues you reference.

I am disappointed that the responses to my post are giving me more information from standard thought and a standard model perspective.

I was hopping for a comment on the model rather than an attempt to educate me about what you guys already believe.

I sincerely appreciate the time you have already invested.

I visited Fermi-Labs. I stood beside the collider. I stood beside the massie array of wires that measured energy coming from the collisions inside the collider. I stood beside the wall of electronics used to meeasue the enegy hitting that massive array of thin wires. The man that built them stood beside me. I am amazed that no one can see that the decay of all those particles into photons that hit those wires implies those particles consisted of those photons.

I have achieved what I wanted to achive in submitting these posts.

Thank you FQXi

Hello Zeeya,

A quick search informs me that "Zeeya Merali is a journalist and author who has written for Scientific American, Nature, New Scientist, and Discover, as well as published two textbooks in collaboration with National Geographic."

I have an insight which I hope you will think is worthy of a scientific news story.

I entered the FQXi essay competitions in 2010 and 2012, which I have recently reviewed with some feelings of remorse that I could have expressed myself more clearly, knowing what I know now.

The covid-19 epidemic and lockdown in the UK has given me time to reevaluate my ideas and I've been expressing them on Dr. Judith Curry's online site whilst having much time to do so (reminiscent of Newton himself during a past epidemic):

....

I've concluded that there's two types of matter within the Earth, which would invalidate Newton's simplistic equation.

In short, why not consider gravity as a strong force that emanates from a compact exotic core but which only interacts with known matter very weakly?

It's a simple solution, yet solves everything.

....

Kind regards

Alan Lowey

(A former UK missile scientist)

I offered this to the community roughly ten years ago, and thought that I would try the waters again.

The reigning models of theoretical physics are grounded upon the assumption that we have explored phenomena down to the point that what remains is an infinitely differentiable field. Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize for pointing out the limitations of that assumption as applied to water and light waves.

For the last thirty years, theoretical physics has struggled to fit the inconsistencies between theory and measurement by adding additional continuous fields. Even so, it is still unable to calculate particle masses (the Higgs boson does not solve the problem of mass - it only solves the problem of parity violation in the Dirac equation) or explain galaxy formation.

The discovery of dark energy, as Einstein understood (he called the cosmological constant his "biggest blunder") implies that there is a another level of discrete physical structure underneath the reigning Standard Model. The most fruitful way forward, as indicated in the first posts on this board, is with models of superfluidity.

Anyone interested in discussion of strategies should respond to this post.

Brian

What % chance would you give of Einstein's gravity theory being incorrect, with respect to there being a crisis in physics & cosmology for the last 40 years? Starting with the assumption that Einstein's ideas being idolised is where the problem lies imo.

Alan

we see quickly that we have an enormous problem in trying to unify the microscales and the macroscales , in fact the problem comes really from this general relativity at this cosmological scale. The EFE describes geometrical modifications of the photonic spacetime due to the energy matters . They are curvatures of the spacetime. Einstein has well worked about a different interpretation of the gravityation, but that does not mean that newton is false, it is just a spacetime made of photons and we observe it .The gravitational fields so in this spacetime made of photons from a source imply so motions. But the philosophical problem to unify this quantum mechanic with this GR is there. The majority tries to consider so that the quantum gravitation is in the same logic, that is why they utilises the tensors, vectors, geometrical algebras and strings and points to reach, quantify, renormlise this QG. The EFE are good for this macroscale and the observations but that does not mean that we must utilise this GR to explain our standard model and reach this QG. The newtonian mechanic is the best way for me and the fact to return at this old school about the motions of particles. If we consider furthermore the two other spacetimes superimposed and the 3D quantum spheres with 3 main primoridal series, that permits to quantify it. This GR cannot be unified with this QM in fact simply, that is why that does not converge. The fields are emergent due to simply photons encoded in this space vacuum of the DE. The Fields of this GR are different and are not the key for this QM.

I have been working on an physical model that attempts to explain the physical mechanism of the curvature of space by matter. This model proposes that all of the properties of the Universe (time, matter, energy, waves, etc) are all emergent properties of the interaction of the medium of space with quanta of information that I call informatons. These quanta can not rightly be called particles themselves. The less lesser the information contained in a system, the faster that system naturally moves in a vacuum, and photons contain the least amount of information that we are able to detect.

Informatons are the only thing in the universe that can move faster than the speed of light, because they contain less information than light itself. The informatons interact weakly through gravity and I propose that they they could be candidates for dark matter. Before I discuss them further, I would like to detail how information interacts with space and results in what we identify as curvature. Experimentation has shown that light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum, thus space itself is not a traditional fluid-like medium like water, as was suspected before the constant speed was identified. I propose that space is still a liquid-like material, an aether, but that it behaves like a non-newtonian fluid. In the presence of information, space itself is distorted and changed into matter and mass emerges as the meta-property that describes it. Informatons themselves have no mass, only information.

As an informaton moves through space, space is distored in front of the informaton, and the distortion is lost as it moves away. This is why particles move through space in a discrete nature, and don't leave any sort of trail, there is no friction, and the particle appears physically to be in only one place at one time. When a particle moves into a higher area of distortion, information is "borrowed" from the informaton and transfered into space. This process causes the wavelength of the particle to change, but not the frequency, thus the particle undergoes refraction and it curves. Simultaneously it is slowed down, thus time varies depending on the amount of distortion in an area. This corresponds to the curvature described in general relativity, and gravitational time dilation. The curvature of space is actually a kind of refraction, and space itself has a refraction index based on gravity. The more gravity in a area, the greater the refraction, and also the slower than time flows.

Because space is distorted, and expands and contracts based on the presense of information, time is tightly coupled to the physical location of information, and appears to be a fourth dimension, mathematically, but entropy provides an arrow for time. The only way that it would be possible to move backwards in time would be to move all of the information in a system back to the place it was at the desired time to travel to, which is impossible for any system. In order to be compatible with other quantum mechanical observations, Informatons must form into units called swarms. Swarms can interact together to create systems and these systems are what we identify as the particles of the standard model. The informatons, having half the information content of light, move at the square of the speed of light. This results in the strange observations of quantum reality, where a particle appears to be in more than one place at once. Sub-parts of the particle are in fact distributed over an area of confinement and when one of the informatons are observed, all of the rest of the informatons are perturbed and "fall" into the place of disturbance. This is how wave function collapse works.

The expansion in front of, and contraction of space behind an informaton is what we observe as wave/particle duality. The informaton is not a particle, nor is it a wave, but both of these properties emerge from the interaction of the informaton with space, thus they are also both particles and waves, as these things arise from the interaction. This is a paradox, I suppose, not a particle, not a wave, but creates a particle, and a wave, and it is very hard to reason about these things from first principles.

Informatons come in only two varieties, and I give them a property I call affinity which applies to their charge and their spin. One of the informatons, is called an "on informaton" and it has positive affinity, and the other is called an "off informaton" which has negative affinity, the spin affinity can also be positive or negative. In a fully populated (evenly filled) chain, half of the informations have positive spin and half have negative, which cancels the spin out. On and off charges attract ie, they have an affinity for each other. When two opposite spin affinities encounter each other, they cancel spin. Informatons each have 1/3 charge (positive or negative) and 1/2 spin. Every three informatons in a system represent one charge. When a system has a fractional remainder of spin, the fraction is always 1/2 for fermions (there is always one extra informaton to create spin). Swarms with an even number of informatons that all spin in the same direction have net spin one, and net charge 0, while swarms with odd numbers of informatons have fractional spin and fractional charge. When there are two extra informatons, there is a net charge of 2/3 because it takes three informations to form a full charge.

A swarm can also be viewed as a string, or a chain of particles. Because opposite informatons attract, informations form long series of alternating ons and offs, and can be rendered in a type of binary notation using 0 for off informatons and 1 for on informatons. Informaton chains are tightly connected together, whereas swarms that are interacting to form a system are loosely coupled together by charge. In the notation I have developed, coupled systems of chains/swarms are connected by a + sign, while chains are represented by series of zeroes and ones. A chain always has a specific "stable" or "ground" length. The longest chain is 8 informatons, but a swarm may consist of many chains linked together, up to a million informatons in the largest swarms, which are top quarks. An chain can be missing informatons from its "ground" length. When this happens, the chain will have spin but may not necessarily have charge. For example, an 8 informaton chain that is missing 4 informatons will have 4/8 spin but 0 net charge. Note that the muon neutrino results in a convenient chain on which everything larger than muon neutrinos are based on. A muon neutrino is 01010101+01 and is respresented by a the shortcut symbol M in the notation.

Thus 4M+010 would represents 4 chains of what would be a muon neutrino linked together with a three chain. This is in fact the notation for an electron! There are 4 eight size chains 4 2 size chains and one three size chain. Because there are an odd number of informatons, the last informaton adds 1/2 uncancelled spin, and the three chain provides a negative net charge of -1, because each information represents positive or negative and 3 informatons always yield a full charge. The notation for a proton is: RLR + 5519M. In this case, the LRL is a six chain that is missing three informations, thus it has 3/6 or 1/2 spin, positive one charge and an awful lot of muon neutrino-like chains. One of the most interesting particles is the W Boson, which can be either 47288M+LRL or RLR+47288M which results in either -1 or +1. Again the LRL and RLR are both halves of six chains, so there is net 1/2 spin, you can think of the three informations in the six chain as spinning in the same affinity.

There is a lot more to discuss about these ideas, but I am going to stop here and see if there are any comments.

You've started in your first sentence with the assumption that Einstein's gravity theory is correct. Do you believe that gravity is always going to be viewed as a very weak force so that an underlying unification of the known forces can never be achieved??

If in a hundred years time there is still a crisis in physics & cosmology, would you consider compact dark matter to exist at Earth's core??

"All strange quantum effects become fairly trivial to imagine if the underlying system moves faster than the speed of light, and it does." - Swanhart

We are in agreement here. Wouldn't the underlying system be the emission of gravitons which interact mechanically with other larger wave/particles to induce a force of attraction?

In my model, which I am still refining, the concept of ORDER matters. A photon is an (L)(R) pair. Conceptually there is no difference between an (L)(R) and a (R)(L). This means no information is conveyed and information creates mass, it is only present when there is order. The gluon (R+L) or (L+R) also conveys no order, but when you stick it between two other particles order is created: (R)+(L+R)+(L) is different from (L)+(L+R)+(R), they can't be connected without reversing the order of one.

An (L)(R) pair may be a graviton and an (R)(L) a photon or vice versa. They would move at the speed of light whereas each L or R moves at the square of the speed of light. This would explain why gravity is in fact the weakest force.

the (L+R) does one other thing thought, it creates spin which is really flap. IN an (L)+(L+R)+(R) the (LR) and (R) flap like butterfly wings, and this is what we call "spin". "spin" is just an arbitrary name, it doesn't imply actual spin, here it in fact implies an oscillation or "wobble" like the earths tilt.

We are accustomed to thinking that the Universe formed as a result of a magnificent explosion. All mass/matter, perhaps collapsing under its own density, exploded into space (and creating space) and has ever since been flying through the void as projectiles, only being ordered by the laws of physics. However, there are problems with this assumption. Mainly, that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics do not work together in this understanding. We are, however, given two clues:

1: "Space" is expanding. i.e. bodies in motion far from us are accelerating at a faster and faster rate. Nothing about a "big bang" can account for this - projectiles from a detonated bomb do not randomly start accelerating as they are being tossed through space. There is some other force than a mere initial propulsion of energy - the energy is continuous and all-permeating.

2: ONlY light is constant from all relative points. All of "space" must obey light, which should naturally lead us to an understanding that this Universe is "light's" universe, and we are all just part of it. We know that light is a display of electro-magnetism - We should consider this more carefully.

I find that, while Einstein is obviously brilliant for solving the mythical force of Gravity as merely an affect of General Relativity - super massive bodies accelerating through space- the concept that reality is actually just massive bodies whipping through a void is no more logically comforting than to assume an unexplainable force of gravity. Indeed, nothing is really "solved" about the nature of the Universe's origins by stating our reality is merely accelerating bodies. Think of it literally - if we take GR on its face value, we have a Universe of matter speeding through what may be an endless void. The image is no more sensible than that of a gravitational force-field. Where do these bodies come from? What are they made of? Where are they going? What causes them to accelerate? What is the sufficient reason (I dislike the term, but at least give me that it is no more logically clear to assume massive projectiles whipping through an endless void than to think the objects possess an orderly gravitational magic)? The reality of our Universe as we understand it seems to me incredibly arbitrary.

Theory:

Einstein's equation E=MC2 provides us with the information that energy and mass are equitable. Also, the Cathode Battery Experiment confirms that the energy given off by a charged battery assumes the form of both a "wave" of electromagnetism, and a "particle" of single electrons that are observable when "motion" stops.

Let us stop and consider what a "wave" is: a bit of energy traveling from point A to B at a certain frequency through a medium (particularly, the electromagnetic medium). The Cathode battery emits a negative magnetic field, and these individually are electrons. They are known to behave like tidal waves do - forming crests, cancelling each other out, creating disturbances and superpositions.

Let us think of what matter is: you are matter. Your computer is matter. Your house is matter. Good - now, what are these made of? Materials, elements, and finally, a mixture of protons and neutrons (we are not interested in "Quarks" for now, all we need to focus on is the electromagnetic function of particles). Everything we consider to be "matter" is equivalent to what we just said about the Cathode battery's electrons: they are merely protons, neutrons, and electrons. But consider this: are not you also moving on planet Earth? Is not the Earth made of similar matter? Is not the Earth traveling around the sun in a elliptical pattern, indeed, a three dimensional wave through space? Are not you yourself and everything you know equally a uniform motion of electromagnetic relations traveling through space in a wave formation?

You are.

Now let us revisit the center of the Universe, the Big Bang. Now assuming that, rather than "matter" we are all simply energy, electrodynamic waves "frozen in (relative)time", a new picture might come to mind. Consider the Cathode Battery. Why do the electrons "move"? Repulsion. The electrons are emitted from the source because they share the same magnetic orientation. Or rather, the magnetic field is formed. This field is obviously stronger near the source: the electron closer to the magnetic is repelled with a greater force. It accelerates much faster. Good. Now, what does GR tell us? That a massive body with massive acceleration causes extreme warps in space-time, which are mistaken for gravity. The extreme gravitational force we see at the center of the milky way could equally be an extreme repulsion of energy. This concept is further strengthened by there being a "cosmic noise" of "radiation" "left over" from the Big Bang. No! This background noise is the electromagnetic field! It is felt everywhere! I argue that all of this is an electromagnetic field - there is no "matter" separate from the concept of energy within this field. More on this later.

We also know that Maxwell's Equations perfectly align with General Relativity. Indeed, Einstein discovered GR as a result of his understanding of electromagnetism. All that can be said in terms of a super massive explosion of matter may be said of an electromagnetic field.

We must then turn to the concept that the Universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate. I say that this is also explainable. Consider both flat Euclidean space and the chaotic mess we find ourselves in within the Galaxy of accelerating matter (or, as I say, electromagnetic repulsion). To go from A to B - to go from our Earth to a distant star will obviously factor in the warped spacetime. We will twist and turn although we feel ourselves on a straight trajectory. But is not the fastest way from point A to point B a straight line? A literally straight line through spacetime is faster than a relatively straight line through space time, given than not all of spacetime is warped uniformly (which is true).

If we admit that this is not possible for us, due to the heavily curved spacetime, to travel in an objectively straight line through space relative to a lesser-warped field of spacetime, it seems obvious to me that matter very distant from us and not so warped will be moving "faster and faster" as it move away from us. As a massive body finally escapes the "gravitational field" of the outlying stars in our Milky Way, it is finally free to follow its inertial trajectory without interference. It is from then on travelling in the fastest way possible - a straight line of spacetime. They appear to move faster and faster the farther away from us they are because they are going farther and farther away from warped spacetime. No matter how you slice it, the object will always appear to be moving "faster" as it escapes our spacetime. Because the distant object is moving at an ever-more "straight" line through space-time, it will seem as through the object is moving at an ever-increasing speed relative to us.

One final point: I have argued that all of us as matter are actually waves of electromagnetic relations. We obviously do not feel as though this is true. Let's have a thought experiment. A man standing on the moon watches a light beam travel by, far away. Or even, a man going one third the speed of light sees a light beam travel by. It will have its accustomed shape to this type of viewer - a wave. This will be true for any speed except the speed of light. Or rather - a relatively equal speed. Imagine two light rays traveling parallel through space. To each other, they are fixed point. They are electrons - not waves. When these energy fields travel at relative speeds, their waves appear as matter to each other. That is why you, a field of protons and neutrons, can interact with the protons and neutrons and electrons of the Earth and most of those in the general space time region/speed. You are traveling at a speed equivalent to them. They do not appear to you as waves or energy, but as particles and matter. We are all traveling on the same wavelength - the same speed or force through an electro-magnetic field being repelled by whatever is at it's core. The Universe is Eminence.

Further refining my model, I predict that there are two neutrinos smaller than the electron neutrino, from which all matter is built. The on/off and twon/twooff. TheseI can also predict the size of the neutrinos, and the sum off all of the neutrinos adds up to just under one electronvolt, as predicted by actual scientists :)

on 0.001299999996

anti on 0.001299999996

photon 0

graviton 0

gluon 0

anti gluon 0

electron n. 0.002599999991

onon 0.01299999983

anti onon 0.01299999983

muon n.0.200218535

anti muon n.0.200218535

tau n. 0.78002

tau n. 0.78002

Hello,

I have made a 26 minute video to explain my version of the MUH on my YouTube channel. It's called 'Universe on a T-Shirt AKA How Nothing = Everything' - Meat on the Bones of the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. Link below:

UniverseonaTshirt

The hypothesis predicts that:

a) Dark Energy is a warp caused by Entropy information, just like Gravity is a warp caused by Energy information.

b) One dimension of Space is warped by Energy and Entropy information - in the extreme cases forming Black Holes and Cosmic Rips, which each dynamically add a Space dimension, forming 3D space.

c) This 3D Space further warps to an infinite dimensional space, Matter in these higher dimensions would seem like Dark Matter to us, and the fractal structure means the infinte copies make this type of universe most likely, so we are in a typical universe.

Hello, I have a new blog essay, "A Physical Theory Based on Sets, not Vectors", which I think will be of interest to this community. As the title implies, it questions what is perhaps the most fundamental assumption of quantum theory, which is that states should be represented as vectors in a Hilbert space. In quantum theory, states have physical extension because the Hilbert space dimensions are valued as functions of space. As the essay explains, an alternative formalism is possible in which states (and indirectly any higher-level particles observed to be part of the states) are represented as sets, specifically, as extremely sparse sets of fundamental units of far smaller scale than any particles of the Standard Model. The essential change is that if states are represented as sets, then they inherently have extension (since sets are unordered collections and not reducible to vectors). The essay explains how the spatial dimensions we observe (indeed, all observables) emerge as patterns of intersections of sets, and evolutions of such patterns through time.

Hi FQXi !

The model in the attached article is not "alternative". Just a slightly different look at the same reality.

In a nutshell, the model can be described as combining a relational view of physics with the concept of a "continuum". We consider the continuum as a "relata", as a non-relational entity in relational physical reality.

To read the article correctly, you need to understand and accept a relational position in physics: Relational quantum mechanics, information-theoretical approach to the interpretation of QM, Qbism and similar ones. The paper is based on this point of view.

The idea is very simple, just a little unintuitive. I hope you enjoy it.Attachment #1: 1_Relational_physics_and_the_concept_of_the_continuum_300721.pdf

A new website, https://www.theimplicateorder.com discusses David Bohm's implicate and explicit orders from a prospective of macrocosmic quantum entanglement, and may show that everything is, indeed, enfolded in everything. Admittedly a bit rough around the edges, the website works to take Bohm's grand theories a bit further beyond the realm of speculation into pragmatic, predictive science. The Fourier transform based future forecasting routine seems the most solid part of the work, with the, as yet, most uncertain area of speculation being a pre-casting routine based on the reversibility of the implicate order. An off-shoot from this reversibility, and dependent on it, is a Bohmian up-sampling algorithm which aims to be high-frequency restorative and anti-aliasing: truly alchemical. Inspired in part by Michael Talbot's book, "The Holographic Universe," if any one of these features turns out to be solid, the work may have been worth the time.

Thanks.