Lawrence,
I agree, but is your post a reply to my 2 questions on your essay blog I just wrote a minute ago, or is this a new thread?
Heuristic rule for constructing physics axiomatization by Florin Moldoveanu
[deleted]
'Nice try, but still will not work. When particles decay or collide with anti-particles, they simply get replaced by other particles and no 'space-time hole' is generated'
If the free neutron decay, it disappears instantly. Then you see the products of its decay - proton, electron and antineutrino, but you know nothing about these processes. Since we remove the matter (neutron) instantly from the volume, a hole in space time can appear for a very short time 10^-24 s. We can test this idea experimentally; if the clocls placed near the neutron storage tick slower, it will be the experimental proof for the hole theory.
Leshan,
When a free neutron decays it decays into an electron and a "W-" who later decays into an electron and an anti-neutrino. The proton is basically replacing the neutron.
An easy way to see that no hole is made is in the context of string theory. A string propagates in such a way that it minimizes the area it sweeps in space time. A Feynman decay diagram is replaced by a string "pants" diagram and spacetime (and the string world sheet) is everywhere continuous including at the cusp.
Another counter example is the electron expulsion from an ionized atom. No space time hole there either. The only net effect is the atom becoming positively charged.
[deleted]
Florin
When a free neutron decays it decays into an electron and a 'W-' who later decays into an electron and an antineutrino. The proton is basically replacing the neutron.
It does not contradict the existence of holes. First appears the hole for the short time, then 'W who later decays into an electron and an anti-neutrino. We must introduce the holes in the Feynman's diagrams. Do you can see how neutron decays? You have the speculative theoretical models only.
Another counter example is the electron expulsion from an ionized atom.
It is not a good example for creation of holes. I need nuclear physics and massive particles.
The string theory prove nothing, it is a very speculative theory. In the same way you can affirm that holes cannot exist because a holy bible forbids holes.
Now I look for 2 atomic clocks and soon I'll have the experimental proofs that holes exist. How can you explain the appearance of time dilation and length contraction effects at decays of neutrons? I'll show also another signs of holes - the destruction of chamber. Thus I can show all experimental signs for holes. The theory predicts and experiment confirms. It is the exact proof for vacuum holes. You cannot go against experimental proofs! Please remember that Experiment governs physics, not dogmas.
Leshan,
It is obvious you do not understand quantum field theory. The neutron decay model is not at all speculative. In electroweak perturbation theory, you can compute very precisely anything you want and experiments agree with calculations to the limit of experimental precision.
However, you are making a more serious (conceptual) mistake. Space-time is not like matter which can be removed. In the current accepted body of knowledge in physics, space and time cannot be removed. Usually the readers of your essay stop reading after seeing this statement.
[deleted]
Florin
If you can compute very precisely anything you want it is not the proof that the theory is true. All the Standard Model is a mathematical model mainly, that can compute all but cannot explain a lot of things like mass, inertia ets. And all Standard Model can fall in the next years because the Higgs cannot be found. There are also other flaws in the Standard model.
The appearance of holes do not contradict the neutron decay model. Please understand that the physical effect with holes is disguised under known model of decay. I do not have intention to change the oficially known model of neutron decay, I must find there signs for holes only.
'In the current accepted body of knowledge in physics, space and time cannot be removed.'
I used words 'remove space-time' in order to explain how to shield gravity only. At quantum level there is another picture. Pay atention to my words: if neutron disappears, it means that we remove this neutron only, but not spacetime. You see, really I remove the matter only to create a hole. But since this operation create holes, I spoke that I can remove spacetime. Now you understand? The both explanations are true. But really I remove matter, not spacetime.
That is it, my theory is a NEW theory that is outside of current accepted body of knowledje. In general, you are now at the FQXi essay contest that looks for a new knowledje at the limits of physics, therefore I don't understand your example with current knowledje. The destination of this forum is just to change the current knowledje.
Leshan,
You say: "If you can compute very precisely anything you want it is not the proof that the theory is true."
Wrong. QCD agrees 100% with observations. This is precisely the power of physics and this is what distinguishes it from philosophy or astrology. It is falsifiable and has tremendous predictive power. When all is explained, a new theory can only be wrong.
"And all Standard Model can fall in the next years because the Higgs cannot be found."
Wrong again. There are extensions of SM without Higgs. They are fully compatible with the current experimental results.
"I used words 'remove space-time' in order to explain how to shield gravity only."
Gravity cannot be shielded due to the equivalence principle. The neutron has energy in its rest mass. When it decays, energy is conserved and the space-time curvature remains locally the same. A "space-time hole" can only be possible if the energy is not conserved and this is not what we observe.
"But really I remove matter, not spacetime."
That is not what I understood from your essay. But suppose you are right. Vacuum is not the naïve pre-Dirac era notion of a complete void. The vacuum is filled with energy and virtual particles. This is responsible for the spontaneous symmetry breaking for example.
"That is it, my theory is a NEW theory that is outside of current accepted body of knowledje. In general, you are now at the FQXi essay contest that looks for a new knowledje at the limits of physics, therefore I don't understand your example with current knowledje. The destination of this forum is just to change the current knowledje."
I agree, we should enhance the existing knowledge, but this means we should be compatible with what we already know to be true so far, otherwise, it is only a self-delusional fantasy.
[deleted]
'I agree, we should enhance the existing knowledge, but this means we should be compatible with what we already know to be true so far, otherwise, it is only a self-delusional fantasy.'
How the new theory of strong interaction can be compatible with old theory of strong interaction? They cannot be compatible in general because they remove one another. You cannot have two theories of strong interaction to be compatible at the same time, it is a logical error. In the same way, my new theory of spacetime cannot be compatible with old concept of spacetime. Einstein's theory for example also removed the old concept of spacetime. It is the main your error in this discution that you try to reconcile the existing knowledje with new knowledje.
My new theory must be compatible with EXPERIMENTAL DATA only but not with QCD or old vision of spacetime! The Experimental data, but not your theory is the main knowledje.
QCD agrees 100% with observations - because theorists hides all errors. We never observed quarcks and gluons. To hide this error, they invented konfinement. QCD is not a logical theory in general because confinement do not follow logically from theory. It is a mathematical model only. I'm sure that this theory can fall during next 10 - 20 years. In general QCD is a darned and full of logical holes theory.
QCD has a major problem - it is not possible to unify QCD with gravitation and other interactions. It is the main cause why QCD must fall.
My holes can unify 3 interactions. If holes appear between nucleons, they 'glue' nucleons as a Descartes vessel. Holes can explain also gravitation and weak interaction.
Another example for you that spacetime can be really removed. Imagine that spacetime consists of virtual atoms of spacetime that appears and disappears (Smolin and other scientists are agree that space is also made of discrete pieces). If the atom of spacetime disappear, then appear a vacant place - a hole that do not have the properties of space-time. You see, quantum spacetime allow for space to be removed. My theory use just the quantum spacetime.
'Gravity cannot be shielded due to the equivalence principle' Gravity can be shielded FOR A CLOSED region of spacetime. For an isolated volume we can shield gravity and it cannot violate EP.
Leshan,
First a typo correction: I meant QED, not QCD. In general in QCD we cannot use perturbation theory for low energy, and we use numerical simulations which are only accurate to about 90%.
Second, a disclaimer: I hope you are not offended by my criticism. Please feel free to poke holes in my essay as well.
"We never observed quarcks and gluons." Not true. Quarks were observed using electron scattering and this is what convinced physicists of the quark model; before that the bootstrap theory was in fashion.
"To hide this error, they invented konfinement". This is extremely well understood to the point that proving it has now become a graduate student homework problem.
"My new theory must be compatible with EXPERIMENTAL DATA only but not with QCD or old vision of spacetime! The Experimental data, but not your theory is the main knowledje." The problem is that QED and the Standard Model DO explain all current experimental data. That is why we need more powerful accelerators to generate new data that may be at odds with the current theories. So your theory has to first reach the same level of prediction as QED and QCD. Then we may consider predictions for new experiments.
"QCD is not a logical theory in general because confinement do not follow logically from theory. It is a mathematical model only." Yes it does follow logically from theory from the non-Abelian local symmetry group.
"QCD has a major problem - it is not possible to unify QCD with gravitation and other interactions." This is true.
"It is the main cause why QCD must fall." Yes, we already know the Standard Model and QCD is not the final word in describing reality, but gravity is extremely weak compared with the other forces and we could not even detect gravitational waves created by violent cosmic events, let alone the ones occurring at the atomic and subatomic levels.
"My holes can unify 3 interactions. If holes appear between nucleons, they 'glue' nucleons as a Descartes vessel. Holes can explain also gravitation and weak interaction."
Unlikely. If they glue the nucleons, than they cannot explain the weak force which is responsible for particle disintegration - the opposite of gluing.
"Another example for you that spacetime can be really removed. Imagine that spacetime consists of virtual atoms of spacetime that appears and disappears (Smolin and other scientists are agree that space is also made of discrete pieces). If the atom of spacetime disappear, then appear a vacant place - a hole that do not have the properties of space-time. You see, quantum spacetime allow for space to be removed. My theory use just the quantum spacetime."
Did you seek criticism from Smolin or other loop quantum gravity people?
'For an isolated volume we can shield gravity and it cannot violate EP." Shielding gravity is equivalent with a violation of EP: the inertial mass stays the same, but the gravitational mass is decreased because of the shielding. Hence the two masses are no longer the same for the duration of the shielding and therefore the EP is violated.
[deleted]
Florin,
Let us discus holes on my page and your essay on this page. Please feel free to enter on my page to discus this item.
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/481
It is the last post about holes in this page because your page is overloaded by text (127 posts).
'I meant QED, not QCD' I have nothing against QED, it is a good theory. But QCD is my opponent and enemy.
'I hope you are not offended by my criticism' I don't see any criticizm, you don't found any holes in my theory.
'Please feel free to poke holes in my essay as well' Thank you, if I find some holes, I'll place they here.
'For an isolated volume we can shield gravity and it cannot violate EP' Shielding gravity is equivalent with a violation of EP: the inertial mass stays the same, but the gravitational mass is decreased because of the shielding. Hence the two masses are no longer the same for the duration of the shielding and therefore the EP is violated'
There your opinion is VERY erroneous. Imagine a closed volume with a body inside. Then we envelope a body with absolute isolation. How you compare now the inertial and gravitational mass? You do not have access to this volume because it is an AVSOLUTE isolation, that shield all the fields including gravitation. It is equivalent to sending a body in another universe.
Since you cannot compare the inertial and gravitational mass, you cannot speak about violation of EP.
Dear Florin Moldoveanu,
You have provided essential guidelines to work on new physics and renormalization. Though the axiomatization in quantum mechanics, U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) are the background for supersymmetric quantum mechanics; the axiomatization in cosmology, the cosmological constant is inconsistent and thereby the axiomatization in quantum gravity may be divergent for the construction of physical axiomatization in entirety.
As the relativity of the critical mass with its environmental parameters are in natural realities, we may proceed with multiple axiomatization of physical realities that are universally valid and the outcome may be an abstract universe mathematically.
Thereby my perception on your article is that the axiomatization of multiple axiomatization in natural realities is your conclusion to proceed with TOE, as the physics and mathematics are inseparable.
With Best wishes,
Jayakar
Dear Jayakar,
Thank you for your good words. Indeed, the "axiomatization of multiple axiomatization in natural realities" is one way to express the idea, and math an reality are truly inseparables.
I have some ideas about the cosmological issues, but for quantum gravity I really do not have any good intuition at this point. Based on what I do know, I think Connes' approach is better than both string and loop quantum gravity, but I need to read more before I will pass judgment and this is why I put a disclaimer in the paper saying that this is only my biased opinion.
Best wishes to you too.
[deleted]
If you have time, feel free to enter on my page to continue discussion. I had a short conflict with Corda. He doesn't found any error in my theory, only notes like 'no mathematical proofs'. What is your opinion about violation of EP?
[deleted]
Sorry, I make errors in hurry. The previous post is my post.
Leshan,
You are "curing" the EP violation with something even worse, a violation of the speed of light. The teleportation argument looks like a rabbit out of a hat trick, and 1. it is not convincing (I did not see any concrete mechanism for how it would happen in your essay) and 2. it will violate a basic rule of relativity of not being able to transmit information faster than the speed of light. If your teleportation would happen slower than the speed of light, then you cannot outrun the gravitational waves resulting in n EP violation yet again.
PS: the Soros foundation has nothing to do with scientific credentials. I should know since it was them who funded my plane ticket to US to come and study physics here.
5 days later
[deleted]
Dear Lwrence B. Crowell-
You wrote: "I wrote a paper last spring concering the zitterbewegung, and communicated with Hestenes about this. I have not submitted it for publication yet. If you are interested in it I can transmit it. Zitterbewegung may be telling us something about the end of renormalization group flows and the onset of mass at low energy. The leptons and quarks all have masses ~ .5 to 100 MeV, and sitterbewgung suggests this mass is associated with a confining potential at the Compton wave length of a particle."
In my essay, "Ultimate Possibilities of Physics", which covers Quantum Field Mechanics (QFM), the origin of the origin of the zitterbewegung is explained a bit. According to QFM, a confining potential is indeed the reason for the zitterbewegung. Kirilyuk, the originator of QFM demonstrates in his papers [2] (see also the tutorials on my website [3]) that a pulsating potential well causes this trapping, which results in a pulsating random wandering state function (the references can be found in the back of my essay).
Regards,
Ben Baten
Dear Bean Batten,
I have read Lawrence's paper and it is extremely interesting how he puts everything together. However, the renormalization group arguments have to be made more rigorous because of the huge orders of magnitude he has to explain in generating the mass. I also mentioned indirectly the zitter effect in my essay when I cite Hestenes' results in the context of U(1)XSU(2). The most important thing about zitter it is that it was recently confirmed experimentally and Hestenes won a prize about this in the first FQXi essay contest. I doubt that Lawrence will read your post here, and I would advise you to write him a message in his essay entry: "Can we see inside a black hole.".
PS: Good luck with your essay in this contest.
[deleted]
Dear Florin,
I would like to start with saying that my background is in engineering and not in physics or mathematics. I am only more or less familiar with many of the modern theories in math or physics.
I enjoyed reading your essay. I think you captured the essence when you say: "physics is an experimental science" and "mathematics deals with abstract relationships."
In my opinion, there is a long journey for science in front of us. To create a TOE we still need to discover new laws of physics, and for sure those may come with new mathematics. When comes to existing theories which we hope to lead to a TOE, I am a believer that the Standard Model is more of a mathematical success than a physical one. There are many basic questions it fails to answer even if in my opinion it should. Same with string theory. Instead of finding out a mathematics which "fits" our world, we need to discover first if the model of the world we have it is complete to begin with. Have we discover all the simple truths? Only after that task is done we can start thinking towards an axiomatizing of physics.
Best regards and good luck with your essay.
I have mixed feelings about the TOE. It is poorly defined, and it is more like a marketing ploy, a nice buzzword, but it will surely be very nice if it is possible. If it is indeed possible, the road there will take us outside the classical Galilean era of doing physics and here I agree with Smolin that we should not put all eggs in a single basket (be it string theory, loop quantum gravity, etc)
[deleted]
To anonymous: Zitterbewegung reflects something about how renormalization group flow ends. It cuts off the scale at which nature is largely invariant with respect to scale. This is of course absolute necessary for there to really exist a physica world. A completely scale invariant world would be one where quantum fluctuations on all scale can obtain completely. In other words the degree of order in the system is determined by quantum fluctuations, which is what happens with quantum critical points. At that point exactly the quasi-particle mass diverges to infinity, which is unphysical. The small breaking of this scaling is wrapped up in the existence of Higgs fields and the zitter.
Cheers LC