Higgs Field and Quantum Gravity by George Rajna

Dear George,

Due to my abysmal lack of academic education, I did not understand any of your essay. Could you possibly be over thinking things? The real Universe must be simple to understand, otherwise it could not exist. As I have pointed out in my essay, REALITY, ONCE, all surfaces travel at the default speed of light. All non-surfaces travel at a speed less than the default speed of light. That is the simplest explanation that can be given for the energy of the Universe. As each planet is unique, the surfaces of the planets all travel at the speed of light, and all their interiors travel at less than the speed of light. Gravity cannot be a fixed measurable force.

My Dear Mr. Rajna,

I have re-read your essay, and although I still do not understand it, I certainly hope that it scores well in the competition.

I do not mean this critically, but I do know that all chess grandmasters, and most chess masters are capable of playing at least one, and in a lot of instances, more than one game simultaneously while being blindfolded.

No computer program could ever be designed that could ever visualize and make a single chess move. Your efforts to develop "synthetic intelligence" appear to me to be utterly futile.

Ruefully.

Joe Fisher

How can humanity be well and healthily steered if the vast majority of it does not understand your essay?

Dear George Rajna,

"Since graviton is a tensor field, it has spin = 2, could be 2 photons with spin = 1 together."

I remember someone stated the same thing over 10 years ago at a web forum (now it is closed). I can't retrieve it as a link but it maybe you? i am also trying to have some assumptions about the same theme for many years.

regards,

ryoji

Lenkung der Zukunft, oder beschränken die Zukunft?

I would have to respectfully disagree with any assertion of the Higgs Field being correct. I predicted that Physicists of the Hadron Collider would misidentify parts of the Aether Particle Field as the Higgs Boson months before their announcement. Instead of figuring out the true mechanism that gives mass to particles, they invented a never-seen-before, super "Scalar Particle." What does the Higgs Mechanism really explain? It states that there is Spontaneous Symmetry-Breaking. Personally, that sounds like they don't have a clue what gives rise to mass so they say it is a spontaneous occurance that just happens without explaination. What kind of mechanism ever just happens spontaneously without any true mechanics? Well, I have found the correct mechanism. I call it the Lorentz Mechanism after the Lorentz transformations. See the Mass-Energy Equivalence equation of Special Relativity was mathematically incomplete. Einstein never linked Mass-Energy Equivalence with the Lorentz transformations of Mass-Increase and Time-Dilation. If he had done this, he would have discovered not only the mechanism that gives Mass to particles, he would have the correct version of Dirac's Equation of Quantum Mechanics (a 4-component wave equation, first-order in Space and Time). See Frequency-energy (the Time-component) is converted in wavelength or photonic-string length that is the Mass of particles. This is because the string in String Theory is the Photon and Electrons (and Positrons) are Photonic-String Manifolds (like balls of string that rotate and vibrate). The equation I call the Tuck-Einstein Equation is Energy = (Space * Mass * Time) / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5. You can even see the Length Contraction Equation within it if you move the denominator to the left-side (except Energy is the Length variable). Most everyone is aware that high-frequency photons have a smaller wavelength and vice versa. However, nobody knew that the Lorentz transformations was the mechanism that yields Mass. Doesn't it make sense that the mechanism that is the root of Mass-Increase is the same mechanism that gives rise to mass? Frequency and Wavelength are just inverse forms of Energy. The Photon is the energy-carrier or Quanta within Quantum Mechanics. The Higgs Boson is just Physicists grasping at straws to make their incorrect theories within the Standard Model work without having to go back to the drawing board and admit that they were wrong. Isn't it interesting how they run into Singularities and Infinities while using Partial Differential Equations (approximations) that require the mathematical tricks of Purturbation and Renormalization. If they had all the variables in their equations, they would be using much simpler Multivariate Calculus. Would you like to see the Unified Field Equation that Einstein searched to find for over 30-years of his life? You can view it in the essay "How Should Humanity Steer the Future? by Stephen Tuck." I derived it as the integration of a variant of Ampère's Force Law with the right-hand side of Einstein's Field Equation of Gravitation (which took me less than 3-years). I was lucky because I had nearly mindlessly finished the Equation of Special Relativity from the very beginning (which then helped teach me everything else). Equations contain a lot of knowledge within them, you just have to know how to read them!

George,

Though I agree somewhat with Stephen about the LHC description of the Boson, and indeed much of quantum and particle physics in general including the graviton) I have to say I think the physics in your essay is exceptionally coherent, logical and explanatory.

It's a massive shame your imperfect English makes it difficult to follow, (very difficult for many going by the above comments). I may be rare in understanding many of the implications and connections but again most won't be, so an 'essay' or even a scientific paper, could do with more descriptive rationalisation.

I personally liked your layout, but it was all a little 'cold' and some kind of 'discussion' section at the end may have brought you higher scores. You mentioned unification etc at the beginning but then didn't fully demonstrate how the parts fitted to achieve that. None the less on content alone I applaud your work. I'm sure you'll understand and appreciate mine, but do please flag up any queries if you read it.

Congratulations, and best of luck.

Peter

Hallo Aaron, I have been looking here for your essay. Are you on staff, perhaps?

I do not agree with your scale - if an essay makes it onto this forum, then I think the neagative comments are singularly inappropriate and indeed convey an unwelcome self-righteous tone.

That's my view, anyway.

George,

Rather off topic and a little let down by you poor command of English, but I think otherwise well written and interesting none the less, so should be placed higher in my opinion.

If you're interested in eugenics, which I think needs better addressing, I'd be glad of any comments.

Judy

Dear Mr. George Rajna

As a first impression it seems to me, that your theory is someone in contradiction in nowadays physics. Namely, the essence of physics is in quantum field theory, in principles of special relativity, general relativity, and in principles of yet unknown quantum gravity theory. Thus, our Newtonian physics is only a consequence of these mentioned theories, not their cause. For instance, it is not a coincidence, that the product m^2 G/(h c) is a dimensional number. m means masses of elementary particles, G is gravitational constant, c is speed of light and h in Planck constant. That this is a dimensionless number is not a coincidence, because it should exist physics, where units kg, m, and second are not important. Otherwise, pyhsics is not completely explained with mathematics, because physical units would not be explained. About this it is written in Duff's paper, but I also write about this, in Section 5 of this paper. A little different approach to physics is written also in my FQXi essay 2012.

Thus, it seems to me, that your derivation is too much based on Newtonian physics and you derive everything from it.

But, if only one of things about which you wrote is correct, you succeed. If only approximation or an analogy is correct, you succeed. This is, due to professional scientists overlook too much about virtually finished physical facts. For instance, they claim that relativistic mass is not important, that form of momentum of Newtonian physics cannot be used in special relativity, and that time dilation cannot be imagined from something more fundamental. I try to prove, that this is not true. Besides, I am interested in all theories, which try to correct Higgs mechanism, or to present it a little differently. Namely, it is strange, how to connect this mechanism with gravity, and this is still unexplained.

But, I cannot follow all your ideas, thus maybe they are much deeper as I think. Therefore I will try to read your theory still more and I will try to understand more, for instance connection between magnetic force and Higgs boson.

My essay

Best regards

Janko Kokosar