Thanks Alan,

Good clarification on the Newtonian (naïve) atomic model. All of which was the basis of Lorentz's Electron Model which he abandoned with the advent of the Planck-Einstein photo-electric reduction to e=hf. Planck never did find a rationale for his distribution theorem, though he had apologized for that when he introduced it in December of 1900. It is there, in any modern effort to find a bridge between the classical basis of both QM and Relativistic physics, that many whom have career investments shout 'heresy!'. I have long thought that Lorentz was working in the right direction in that he found that the greater the level of charge, the smaller the diameter of volume; hence energy density. And the LT in SR is two dimensional, and invariant as observing one body from another. Length contraction to be covariant would limit at a c proportion of rest size. The Relativistic arguments of time can also be stated in terms of quantity of time in a bottle. It measures as light going slower in a gravity well because it is transiting through a greater amount of time in a confined volume of space. But I'm not presently thinking of subjecting myself to the fray of putting out a paper, I've been too easy a target in other real world matters. Best of Luck getting any community support, there is probably a bit more than will risk the limelight. Go for the experimentalist support in the tech world. As I am fond of pointing out, the big money doesn't want a particle that looks like a donut that can't get a grip on a swizzle stick. They want one that will put a hole in an adversary's shield. :-) jrc

Alan,

I have found all of your essays to be beneficial. This one is no exception. Many thanks.

The "shut up and calculate" mentality is very similar to the mentality prior to the Helios-centric paradigm shift. Perhaps this means another paradigm shift is in the works. You present a good argument regarding what that shift might look like.

Your emphasis is upon waves. So I will ask you ... "What is waving?" Soliton waves might explain a lot. But what is the medium? Can a wave be more fundamental than the medium that is waving?

Is it possible or practical to empirically test for deviations beyond first order to falsify any of your predictions? This is where the truth will be found.

Taking spin as fundamental seems reasonable to me ... especially since it is a property that is so difficult to comprehend based upon macro-world experience. The fact that you are able to fit it into so many properties is very promising I think.

Lastly, you have identified a number of paradigm shifts that you believe were incorrect. I will simply note that as science advances, interpretations are made as to the meaning of observations. If enough such interpretations are made, sooner or later one of them will be wrong and everything thereafter will also be wrong. I don't necessarily know which one in our history is wrong, but I'm pretty sure that at least one of them is.

Well done.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

    Gary,

    I'm interested in how Dr. Kadin might reply to your queries, and will wait and see. However, Spin as you note is an ambiguous property, and I wonder if it physically represents the orthogonal relationship within the spherical geometry of spatial efficiency. Like squeezing a ball of Silly Putty, the compression has to go sideways. So rotating vector fields would be time dependent orthogonal potential. And the electron (I just want to know what an electron is. - Albert Einstein) is more a propensity to self-organize in an energy field which can become ejected as a stable volume, than being a persistent real form within the 4D atomic volume. jrc

    Dear Gary and John,

    You both make some interesting points, which I will try to address.

    When I say that waves are fundamental, I mean fields in vacuum. These are not abstract mathematical quantities, but real objects varying in space and time. In fact, space and time are embodied in these varying fields. We have no trouble thinking about real electric or magnetic fields, because we can measure these in the classical high-amplitude limit, over a wide range of frequencies. But an electron field seems like a strange object, with an extremely high frequency that we can't measure directly, and a low amplitude (due to the exclusion principle). You can have many electrons in the same region in space (such as in an atom or in a metal), but they all have different frequencies - they are not oscillating in phase. Still, this may be the same sort of object as an EM field.

    So it seems that these photon and electron fields are fundamental, but the problem is that there are too many fundamental fields: Positrons, Muons (both varieties and antiparticles), Neutrinos (3 varieties and antiparticles), Quarks (6 varieties and antiparticles), Gluons, W and Z. This is too many to be truly fundamental, implying something is likely to lie beneath this level. However, I am convinced that previous efforts at grand unification have started in the wrong place, making their conclusions questionable.

    When I say that spin is fundamental, I mean that it is a universal constant, measured in units of Planck's constant, which defines the discreteness and countability in the universe. I am looking for a set of field equations for which Planck's constant falls out automatically.

    Regarding tests, if there is no superposition on the level of a single photon or electron, there should be large differences from orthodox theory using standard laboratory equipment. Regarding tests of gravity, my theory is identical to standard GR to first order, so that one would need to do high-precision measurements in strong gravitational fields. Gravitational Wave observations have no bearing on such a test.

    But I think the most important aspect of my essay is the restoration of unity on all scales, based on real physical objects, not obscure mathematics. This neoclassical picture incorporates the discreteness of quantum theory and the GR distortions of time and space, but retains a deterministic classical picture of local reality.

    Alan

    Thanks Al,

    that's a goodly bit to chew on. I've often thought that the numerous 'fundamental particles', or particle zoo, might become explicable if we find a recursive resonance formulation that would be somewhat like the set of field equations you seek. That is to say that; geometry as we know it has a spherical component and an orthogonal component, and so far that's the best we can do from observation - the sphere being the most efficient encapsulation of space and any point on the surface reachable in the same light nth second from zero point center, yet the orthogonal relationship discovered by Faraday physically exists in electromagnetic induction (!). We can't be far wrong. So if we conclude that for any mass/energy quantity, that quantity would ideally and naturally prescribe the SIZE of a spherical volume as a free rest mass which would be optimal...such as the ground state electron... then we could possibly find the algorithm for preferred quantities which would naturally prescribe metastable volumes of the particle species. I agree that there is both an inward or gravitational tendency, and an outward or kinematic, or electrical, tendency in any particle species. Which makes the lonely Neutron a best candidate for developing a physically real, general definition of electric charge. (Like the scene in Men in Black where the Bug wrenches open the little pot with the diamonds in it, searching for the Galaxy and howl's "Aurghhh... where IS it!?!) What the hell do people mean when they say 'charge'? :-) jrc

    Hi Alan - I don't know if you read my essay yet but there was a reason why I quoted you in my last post to you...

    "What is needed is a set of equations whereby an electron field spontaneously self-organizes into domains of rotating vector fields with spin ±h(bar)/2, and a photon field self-organizes into domains of spin nh(bar). Unfortunately, we do not yet have those equations"

    I have derived the rotating vector field that had spontaneously self-organised where its math derives its spin value of ±h(bar)/2. My theory also derives the photon field with a spin of nh(bar). The problem is that part of my theory is not presented in my paper. The reason why no one has figured this out is because no one has found the hierarchy of energy. (See the equation below)

    where the value of G can only be 0, 1, or 2. When G = 2 it's E = mc^2 and when G = 1 it's E = (h/wavelength)c^1. When G = 0, it is the energy of spacetime which is proportional to c^0.

    I don't expect you to believe me now - but if you are interested, read my paper here to get a taste of the theory. Maybe read this one too... https://www.academia.edu/27987699/_Why_Cant_the_LHC_Find_New_Math_Attachment #1: 1_The_GOD_Equation_bold_with_trademark_r.jpg

      This looks like a wonderful abstract written in a perfect manner and following the standard citation format. However, if you buy dissertation online or an essay, you may have the more custom written essay and dissertations.

      Hi Alan,

      Your essay is well written and expresses what is wrong with the current state of Physics. I particularly like your description of what particles are/should be: constructed from waves rather than considered a point particles.

      I have constructed a 3D computer model of the electron/positron, and determined their wave functions which describe these particle's properties exactly - both Classical and Quantum Mechanical descriptions match. My paper can be found here:

      http://vixra.org/abs/1507.0054

      I would be interested in your feedback on this paper if you can find the time to review it...

      Regards,

      Declan Traill

        Dear Mr. McEachern,

        I am not quite sure that I understand what you are addressing. Are you talking about Bell's inequality measurements that measure the polarization of a photon? If you had two separate photon beams sent to two separate detectors, the results would be uncorrelated.

        My criticism of these experiments is somewhat different - they may not be measuring single photons at all!

        Will you be submitting an essay this year?

        Regards,

        Alan Kadin

        Dear Declan,

        Thank you for reading my essay. I looked briefly at your paper. If I understand correctly, your trial wave is a complex oscillating wave with a Gaussian envelope, which should represent a localized electron at rest. The frequency is the proper quantum frequency based on the rest energy. A Gaussian envelope might make sense, if one can find a basis for confining the electron. The problem is that according to the Schrodinger equation, an unbound electron wave will quickly spread out.

        But what is the size of your electron wave? Your units are not consistent - as it stands, the size of the wave is units of sqrt(meters). The scale should probably be the Compton wavelength h/mc.

        A second observation is that you have a complex scalar wave. But if you want to incorporate spin, a real vector field makes more sense, since spin is associated with rotation of this field. (I have shown that a complex scalar wave is mathematically equivalent to a rotating vector field, but the pictures are quite different.)

        Will you be submitting an essay this year?

        Best wishes,

        Alan Kadin

        Dear Scott,

        Thank you for your comments and suggestions, but I am looking for a different kind of equation - a nonlinear wave equation, a partial differential equation in space and time that generates discrete amplitude wave packets.

        Alan Kadin

        Alan,

        When you say, " The problem is that according to the Schrodinger equation, an unbound electron wave will quickly spread out." ... does that mean in physical reality that it does not have a rest state, definite size at an energy density that exhibits electrostatic behavior? (that would be a problem for Schrodinger, methinks) :-) jrc

        I agree that they are certainly not measuring the kind of thing that they have assumed that they were measuring.

        "If you had two separate photon beams sent to two separate detectors, the results would be uncorrelated."

        In Bell tests on classical objects, it is possible to force "weird" correlations to exist, by systematically removing all but a single bit of measureable information from the entities being measured

        Since there is then only one bit to ever be measured, it is impossible to make two measurements that are uncorrelated. That is what Bell did not take into account.

        I have submitted entries in the past, but have no plans to do so this year.

        Best of luck with your own entry.

        Rob McEachern

        Alan,

        Yes the model represents an electron/positron at rest, and is an oscillating wave comprised of rotating vectors.

        The Schrodinger equation when applied to a point-particle electron may behave as you say, but I am using the wave function that describes the actual structure of the electron, and solutions to the Schrodinger equation and Classical wave equation will be stable 3D waves that persist.

        I'm not sure what you mean by "what size?" the 3D wave function is infinite in extent, but diminishes in intensity with distance from the particle center.

        The reason that the vectors are complex, is that the Schrodinger equation requires them to be, as it relates two vector quantities with a complex 'i' in the equation. The reason for that is that the two quantities are orthogonal - multiplying any complex vector by 'i' has the effect of rotating it 90 degrees around the origin in complex space. The vectors are actually real, but the Schrodinger equation uses this mathematical 'trick' to express orthogonality in a concise way.

        No, I'm not submitting an essay this year - don't have the time and the topic disn't inspire me enough this time.

        Best Regards,

        Declan Traill

        4 days later

        Hi Alan, thank you for sharing your recipe for unification. I am grateful that it is written in accessible English, so that I can easily follow your arguments. I do think you are right to discount space-time as a foundational necessity. Hilbert space is an analytical tool rather than actual stage where subatomic physics is happening. So I'm not worried about dispensing with that either. The little bold italic touches were nice. Little sage sound bites I could see on a fridge magnet : ). I think the entanglement issue stems from thinking of states or values as properties wholly belonging to the entity under investigation rather than being the outcome of the relations that have pertained in finding it. So although an isolated relative value or state does not exist until the experiment or viewpoint is imposed,(IE the character or value forming relation happens), applying the same context to two separate particles formed as a pair that are in some way opposites, will inevitably identify opposite singular values or states. I appreciate the time that must have gone into developing your model and preparing this presentation. Kind regards Georgina

          Alan,

          Thanks very much for the interesting paper. I was able to make a Braille-like assessment of it while sliding lightly over some of the equations. Still, you held my interest and I believe I got the broad strokes of your thesis because you developed it well.

          Hope to have a paper in the mix before the deadline.

          Regards, Don Foster

            Dear Georgina,

            Thank you for your reading and your comments. I aim toward clarity and simplicity. The key point of my essay is that nature should be simple and unified at the fundamental level. Obscurity and complexity are indications that something is seriously wrong. Remarkably, some of my sympathetic colleagues have suggested that I might be able to publish in a journal if I narrow the focus and make my intention LESS clear. I have not taken their advice.

            Alan

            Dear Don,

            I'm not sure what you mean by a "Braille-like assessment", but my main point is that reunification of physics can be achieved only if we reconsider several aspects that have long been accepted as proven. Otherwise, we are stuck trying to make sense out of aspects that are logically incompatible.

            I will look for your essay.

            Alan

            Dear Alan Kadin,

            your paper is interesting insofar as it makes a provable statement, namely that orthodox quantum mechanics differs from the predictions of your approach.

            Assuming that your predictions are confirmed by experiment, I nonetheless cannot unequivocally conclude what principles should be considered 'fundamental' in your approach, or put differently, how your approach answers the essay contest's question "what is 'fundamental'?"?

            You merely seem to answer what is *not* fundamental, what - if it turns out to be true - would be a major success indeed (no non-locality, no superpositions, no black holes, no singularities), no doubt about this. But what has your approach to say about what is fundamental regarding ultimate reality? Unfortunately I wasn't able to decipher a possible answer from your essay.