Wrinkles in Spacetime

The dimensionless fine structure constant, alpha ~= 1/137, is indeed one of the important keys for unlocking the underlying nature of physical reality. Feynman's quantum field theory uses perturbation expansions based on factors of alpha and the gyromagnetic ratio calculated with such a QFE series is the most accurately known physical constant of nature.

The problem with alpha is not that there is no way to describe it...the problem is that there are any number of ways to describe alpha since it is dimensionless.

My favorites are as the product alpha x c is the average velocity of the electron for a hydrogen atom as well as alpha / c is the velocity of spin at the elementary charge radius of an electron or proton. That means that the charge velocity of the electron in hydrogen makes a magnet that interacts with the magnet that comes from the charge velocity of the electron spin. This spin-orbit coupling is what splits the s and p orbits of hydrogen, which have different average velocities, and that is what causes most of the spectral splitting of S and P states of hydrogen and other elements.

The constancy of alpha from spectral splittings in both distant galaxies and precision atomic clocks is the only argument for an expanding universe of unvarying constants. Any theory that supposes forces are different in distant galaxies must somehow explain why alpha appears to be constant for both distant galaxies as well as for precision atomic clocks.

In fact, it is not really alpha that appears to be constant, it is really alpha^2. In a shrinking universe, this key fact means that alpha does vary in distant galaxies and alpha^2 only varies as a second order. In fact, there are many reports of the second order variation of alpha^2 and atomic clocks are only now precise enough to begin showing these second order effects.

Hello Mr Agnew,I am thanking you very much.It is nice.It is a beautiful general explaination and Isee better now.I am going to learn more.mlosV if it is correct so can be relevant for the bridge with gravitation, dark matter(spherons.If l is the linear speed,so the samelogic can be made in superimposing the dark quantum matter and quantum BH.The standard model is encircled by BH and dark matter like our cosmological scale in logic.The same method can be made for spherons.An other alpha exists for this matter not baryonic it seems to me.What a puzzle:) Thanks still.

Oh blast it...c / alpha not alpha / c...

The dimensionless fine structure constant, alpha ~= 1/137, is indeed one of the important keys for unlocking the underlying nature of physical reality. Feynman's quantum field theory uses perturbation expansions based on factors of alpha and the gyromagnetic ratio calculated with such a QFE series is the most accurately known physical constant of nature.

The problem with alpha is not that there is no way to describe it...the problem is that there are any number of ways to describe alpha since it is dimensionless.

My favorites are as the product alpha x c (or c / 137) is the average velocity of the electron for a hydrogen atom as well as c / alpha (or 137c, 137 times the speed of light) is the velocity of spin at the elementary charge radius of an electron or proton. That means that the charge velocity of the electron in hydrogen makes a magnet that interacts with the magnet that comes from the superluminous charge velocity of the electron spin. This spin-orbit coupling is what splits the s and p orbits of hydrogen, which have different average velocities, and that is what causes most of the spectral splitting of S and P states of hydrogen and other elements.

The constancy of alpha from spectral splittings in both distant galaxies and precision atomic clocks is the only argument for an expanding universe of unvarying constants. Any theory that supposes forces are different in distant galaxies must somehow explain why alpha appears to be constant for both distant galaxies as well as for precision atomic clocks.

In fact, it is not really alpha that appears to be constant, it is really alpha^2. In a shrinking universe, this key fact means that alpha does vary in distant galaxies and alpha^2 only varies as a second order. In fact, there are many reports of the second order variation of alpha^2 and atomic clocks are only now precise enough to begin showing these second order effects.

Question to All .....

I understand that QM and GR are both 4-D models. Presumably, they both share the same three spatial dimensions.

What is the basis for the belief that they also share the same 4'th dimension?

Regards,

Gary Simpson

Hello Gary,

You can learn the lagrangian and the Minkowski space time.In fact it is just model of evolutive metric to see the evolution in time.So time is considered like a relativistic tool which permits to class and analyse the intrinsic dynamics.You can also learn more about the maxwell's équations.The works of Lorentz are relevant also considering the time dilation and lenght contraction.The relevance is to link with the special and the general relativity.You can also see that general relativity islinked with sphères acting on the space time considering the curvature of our space time.The spherisation appears naturally due to this mass curving.They are just Tools to analyse our quantum scale and cosmological scale.It permits to have correct results considering the evolution and the encodings.Hope that helps.Best Regards

An expression for the fine structure constant contains constants that come from electromagnetic theory (e), relativity theory (c) and quantum theory (h).

That expression of the fine structure constant is:

a = (2*pi*k*e2)/(h*C)

k is the proportionality constant from Coulomb's equation

The fine structure constant is also equal to ve/C where ve is the speed of the hydrogen electron in its lowest energy level.

How do theoretical physicists derive the equation,

(2*pi*k*e2)/(h*C) = ve/C

beginning with either expression and, after mathematical manipulation, ending with the other?

My reason for asking this question is that I think that they can't do it. Can they?

James Putnam

James,

I think you have correctly identified the ambiguity that has pervaded attempts to account for the fine structure constant. The physical significance of the proportionate value cannot be found without a rational model of what constitutes matter and what constitutes the light which is displayed in the interaction between the two. It is only the response of the detection system that we can observe, no one has ever observed a photon. And to parameterize the velocity of an electron in the assumed ground state of a hydrogen atom is meaningless without answering the question Einstein posed; "I just want to know what an electron is." The Quantum model is non-realistic and we have literally no explanation of the Transition Zone and the peculiar measured proportionate rates of change of field strengths observed in the Near Field. jrc

Yet another way to express alpha is with the Rydberg energy, Ry. The Rydberg energy comes from the energies of the hydrogen lines and represents a very solid constant for mainstream science.

alpha^2 = Ry / (me c^2)

So, the mass of the electron, me, times c^2 is the electron's relativistic energy and somehow Ry, the energy of the light that hydrogen emits, is just some small fraction of the electron relativistic energy.

Guess what? That fraction is exactly alpha^2 ~= 1/137^2. Once again, it is not that there is no way to define alpha, the difficulty is that there are many ways to define the dimensionless alpha.

My proposition for aethertime is that there is a phase factor for alpha that is normally ignored and that phase factor means that alpha^2 does not appear to vary except in second order. This explains why neither galaxy light nor precision clocks show a variation in alpha^2 except to second order and yet alpha in first order does therefore vary along with c and it is c / alpha that is constant.

In a shrinking universe, both c and alpha vary together and that decoherence rate is what defines all force in aethertime.

Qunantum is relativistic, but not 4D in the same sense as GR...

Gary D. Simpson wrote on May. 1, 2016 @ 05:26 GMT as "I understand that QM and GR are both 4-D models. Presumably, they both share the same three spatial dimensions. What is the basis for the belief that they also share the same 4'th dimension?"

While GR is clearly 4D with time as a spatial dimension, Quantum uses mass-energy equivalence, E=mc^2, and therefore an exchange particle, the photon, to make things relativistic.

In GR, things always happen along geodesics ever since the universe was set in motion from the big bang. In quantum, the universe moves by exchange of photons and so there are no completely certain geodesics. Since gravity and charge differ by 1e39 power, these differences can be ignored for most all objects and action.

The quantum phase coherence of photon exchange entangles objects throughout the universe with each other but GR has no such quantum phase coherence. While GR is a very good representation of most objects of the universe, GR utterly fails to represent objects inside of black holes and other event horizons. GR also fails to represent dark matter and dark energy, which are simply quantum exchange forces working at very large scale.

However, a quantum gravity will represent objects inside of event horizons as well as the quantum exchange forces called dark matter and dark energy...but mainstream science does not yet have a quantum gravity. I am glad that I do because it is silly not to have a quantum gravity in a quantum universe...

Hi Jonh,James,Mr Agnew,

That rocks :) thanks for all these informations and reasonings.It is relevant.Regards and don't stop dear thinkers to think of course....

You are welcome.the explaination of Mr Agnew permits to see the whole.I learn in the same time.I wait also your essays about mathematical plays.ps to both of you ....How can we consider time at these two different scales? Is it purelly correlated like the gravitation witht the rotations of sphères implying clocks? What are your points of vue please?Best Regards

Gary,

Tom Ray is the one whom is best equipped to explain the distinctive difference of measurement space vis-à-vis QM and GR in terms of the general consensus among the practioners of both disciplines, and without prejudicing the discussion with preferrences to support an agenda promoting a presumed *discovery* in a theoretical hypothesis based on some personal equation. While he does champion Dr. Joy Christian's topological framework as a means of protracting a local realistic measurement space consistent with relativistic spacetime, and works towards a topological extrapolation of GR, he is one of the few whom holds fast to scientific discipline in respecting the professional conventions of limitation on definition of terms in both Quantum and Relativistic mechanics and is knowledgable and appreciative of the historical origin and evolution of the modern divergent theoretical regimes. He is my vote for Chief Quality Control Inspector. I just don't think he wants to be subjected to much more of the Chat Room Hazzards seeking fifteen minutes of fame whom cling to this blogspace like it was flypaper. He has taken down his own blogpage due to the common privacy problems these days, but if you care to risk posting your own email address if or when he posts a comment, he would probably appreciate your own strictly scholarly intents and engage in some private exchange. Onward through the fog!!! jrc

John R. Cox,

Very good response! You addressed the problem directly. I don't presume that you agree with what I will now say. My opinion is that lack of complex knowledge prevents a scientifically sophisticated explanation for that equation. However, I am certain that on the Bohr model level, there should already be an elementary level explanation for converting between the two sides of the equation. There isn't and I suggest that that is pointing us to an error in the left side expression. I don't mean a mathematical error. I mean a theoretical error. I have addressed this problem concerning the fine structure constant in far more detail here in the past. It is one of several theoretical conundrums that are sidestepped with indirect responses or bypassed altogether with changes of subject by theoretical physicists. There is another similar to it that involves the force of gravity equation.

James Putnam

You have a lot of energy on the topic of objects and change, but you do not like the word time. You say that there is no evidence that time gets delayed, but that makes time an object, which you agreed before time was not an object. Time delay is a property and that is what we measure.

You measure a change in an object and one of those measurements I call time delay. You do not want to call it time delay, but we both agree that we can measure change.

I am afraid that we are arguing about the definitions of words and not about any physical principles...

Steve Agnew,

"I am afraid that we are arguing about the definitions of words and not about any physical principles..."

No that is not the case. Nothing I have said suggests in anyway that time is an object. I made clear what it is that identifies objects. There has been no confusion nor contradiction in anything I have said to you.

"...you do not like the word time." ...

Despite your misrepresentation of my opinion, I like the work 'time'; it is its mistreatment by theorists that I object to. You have no empirical evidence showing that either time or space experience effects. All empirical evidence consists of changes of velocities of objects. There is no evidence for either time or space having velocities.

James Putnam

Black holes represent singularities in space and time, but in aethertime, black holes are not singularities because that is no continuous space and time. There are lots of difficulties with the notions of continuous space and time and the black holes of mainstream science are simply a product of the limitations of these notions.

Presuming that the universe is not infinitely divisible means that the universe is made up of finite aether particles. However, the universe is not therefore made up of empty space that is filled with a finite aether, rather the universe is made up of a finite aether from which the notions of continuous space and time emerge.

A black hole is an object of matter that exists within continuous space and time and the logic of general relativity works only up until the space and time of the event horizon of a black hole, which is its surface.

In the logic of aethertime without continuous space and time, a black hole exists with a discrete mass, a discrete time delay, and an action or motion relative to an observer. Motion in this sense is a matter change that is equivalent to object velocity from which motion through space emerges. Without an empty space to begin with, there is no sense to an inside different from an outside since the entire black hole simply has the discrete property of a single time delay, a single mass relative to an observer, and a single matter change.

Phase coherence is what solves the further information paradox for a black hole that supposes that the information about the objects that make up the black hole simply disappears from the universe. In aethertime, there is a further property of black holes that has no meaning for general relativity. The black hole has the quantum property of phase coherence and it is the phase coherence of a black hole that preserves all of the information of all of the objects that accrete to form a black hole.

With the rather limited notions of continuous space and time, the way that a black hole spins is what captures all of the information of the objects it accretes along with black hole mass, time delay, and matter equivalent velocity.

Steve D,

Thanks again. You ask how it might be possible to reconcile time at two different scales. I can offer some insight to that question. Take Euler's Equation and multiply it by the exponential form of a quaternion. I will reference "Quaternion Dynamics - Part 1" to give you a starting point. This is a paper posted to Dr Gibb's website viXra.org. If you do an author search on me (Gary D. Simpson) you can find the text.

The exponential form of the quaternion can be expressed as the exponential of a scalar multiplied by a quaternion. When that is multiplied by the complex form of Euler's Equation, it produces an 8 term expression that is a 5-D subset of the octonions.

I have Part 2 ready to post. I am waiting to post it because I plan to use it as my primary reference for the next essay contest and I might need to make some revisions depending upon the topic.

In any event, the exponential of the scalar term allows time to be introduced as a scalar. It is already present as a complex term.

Treating the problem as a 5-D geometry allows me to calculate the diameter of the proton as being 1.668E-15 meter. This is very close to the measured value. Unfortunately, it requires me to commit the heresy of motion with respect to a stationary vacuum. So I am damned if I do and damned if I don't.

John C,

Many thanks. I will keep my eyes open for such a post. In any case, I place my email address on the title page of the papers that I post to viXra ... I have had no problems to date.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Garreth Lisi has worked about E8 and Georgina has worked about theprime quanternion model.I discussed a lot in the pasts with my friend Ray about these extradimensions and the E12 of Ray,I asked me what are these dimensions.I didn't know well these algebras.Lies algebras,Clifford,Hopf,Magma...)all these Tools are relevant in fact and intresting when they are well utilised with the good récurrences,limits and domains.Thanks for the links,I am going to learn more.The fractalisation of a pure 3D can be made it seems tome if we consider the serie of spherical volumes,this serie is a finite serie for the stable primordial serie,quant and cosm.Several constants can appear between these volumes.We could even find the volume of the central BH of our universe.

:)How are your fingers ? Don't forget to repeat the gamuts and Hannon exerises .:)bEST Regards

I really should stop since I really agree with what you are saying, but you still disagree with my terms.

Now you say that there are objects and change and we can measure those changes. I agree.

When I send a pulse of light to an object and see it reflected back, that is a change and I call that change time delay.

When I measure a change in the atomic line position of an object, that is a change and I call that change a mass equivalent velocity or motion.

So you can call these changes anything you want, but the notions of continuous space and time are just that--notions. There is only indirect evidence for both continuous space and continuous time from the changes we observe for objects. And there is no evidence for space or time having velocities since neither space nor time are objects. I agree. Only objects have velocities.

Your words seem fundamentally confusing to me because I think I agree with you and then you say that I do not. You say that time is not an object. I agree. Then you say that there is no evidence for time having a velocity, which I agree. But since time is not an object, talking about it having a velocity does not make sense to me.