Is Relativity the Holy Grail of Physics? by Robert Spoljaric

Dear Robert,

That is one of the most beautiful essays I've ever seen.

But I have one question. Where is electric charge? It seems that in doing away with mass you've also done away with charge, making it difficult, in my opinion, to 'derive' photons.

My theory is based upon mass as the fundamental entity, from which everything else is derived, but, in the spirit of your 'appearance of mass' I think that I can possibly replace mass by curvature. In fact, it is when the Maxwell-Einstein gravitomagnetic field reaches its limit of curvature ('event horizon'?) that discrete 'mass' comes into existence, (as the neutrino) and interaction of this particle with the gravito-magnetic field leads to electric charge coming into existence, which then allows photons to come into existence.

Of course the use of 'mass' is extremely convenient, but I could probably, in the spirit of your approach, simply work with 'local curvature' and not mention mass. (By this I mean conceptually. To work with General Relativistic field equations at this level of particle physics would be out of the question.)

I have, as a result of conversations with Peter Jackson and Willard Mittleman, been applying my theory of the C-field (my name for the gravitomagnetic field)to the photon, and have derived some fascinating results. One of these is a coupling of the photon wavelength to the gravitomagnetic field. I believe that this is 'new physics', that is, I believe the relation has never been seen before. I am in process of writing it up.

Anyway, I love your essay, and would like to hear your ideas on electric charge. I don't think that sweeping them into 'matter' and 'anti-matter' will do. I think that you need a further relation than the Bekenstein-Hawking formula-- one that also incorporates charge and the fine structure constant. I have such a formula in my theory.

This should definitely be a winner!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Robert

Thank you for a wonderful clear, succinct and honest essay. One really wonders how long these other human beings believe they can live with their heads buried so deeply in the sand. (I've estimated perhaps 2020).

I have to assume your maths are logical as I went a different route to find a clear view of a different side of a very similar reality. I believe I may offer you some support from a more 'physical reality' based approach, to link your abstractions back to a mechanism, linking Reality and Locality. I do also hope you might offer some mathematical support for my own hypotheses, which are quite buried under all the solid empirical evidence and logic available, but few numbers.

But you may not speak any more of my language than I now do of maths. I would however welcome and value your views on my essay if you can find time to read it.

I shall certainly save a high score for yours.

Best wishes.

Peter Jackson

Hello Dr. Klingman,

You are much too kind, and I am both flattered and embarrassed by your praise.

Regarding the paper what has been derived are 'foundations' (the Light and Equivalence Identity). Much remains to be said.

As to your question 'Where is electric charge?' I would ask 'Where is electric charge in Eqs. (2) and (3)?' It seems to me that the confusion lies in the fact that the Light-relations do not - at this initial stage - account for the property of spin, which would allow matter to be distinguished from radiation.

Clearly you have given a lot of thought to the ideas presented in your essay, and so I will offer you some more 'food for thought' from the perspective of my essay. The 'rest mass' in Eqs. (2) and (3), is, thanks to the generalised Compton wavelength, 'angular frequency' in the Light-relations. If we think in terms of world-lines, then instead of a continuous (classical) world-line, we have a discontinuous (non-classical) world-line. If your theory is 'based upon mass as the fundamental entity,' then I wonder what your theory would look like if 'frequency is fundamental?'

Thanks again,

Robert

Dear Robert,

The C-field (or gravito-magnetic field of the weak field limit of general relativity) has dimension frequency, (1/t), and because the C-field is the rotational or circulational aspect of gravity, one would of course consider this to be 'angular frequency',(and I have done so in some of the references listed in my essay.) In my theory the degree of curvature relates to 'mass' as the convenient ('scalar') summary denoting the stress energy of the highly curved field. In this sense, your instincts are 'right on'---

I am convinced that, to go much further, you will have to consider the C-field, as a Yang-Mills type of self interaction that is, I believe, necessary for a theory capable of describing the universe as we know it to be. But I am fascinated by your approach, and, as I relate in my essay, it is compatible with the Calabi conjecture that 'justifies' my Master equation, based on curvature. Unfortunately, although Yau proved the conjecture (via Calabi-Yau manifolds), after almost three decades Yau has still not found the appropriate metric. [Part of this is due to the mistaken belief that 10 or 11 dimensions are required.]

So asking what my theory would look like if frequency supplanted mass as fundamental is a good question. Based on the above I suspect the computations would be next to impossible, but, conceptually, I have not yet found a problem with it, since 'mass' in my theory is essentially a summary term for the torus that results from a self-interacting C-field vortex (boson). Hit with enough energy, the torus resumes the vortex form and new particle 'masses' may result.

Substituting a scalar, 'mass', for a complex 'metric' or 'manifold' is computationally convenient (probably absolutely necessary!) but your insistence that the substitution is convenient, not fundamental, is insightful and fascinating. You have definitely given me food for thought, and I hope (and plan) to return the favor.

Thanks again,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Peter,

Thanks for reading my essay, but it is impossible (at this stage) to comment on the 'solid empirical evidence' used in your argument for the following reason: If 'the Light' as defined in my essay is correct, then we go beyond SR, GR and QM. It is therefore necessary to consider that empirical evidence from a 'paradigm of physics' whose details have yet to be fully worked out.

However, my essay agrees with you when you say that we must: "step back and detach ourselves to not confuse personal view and experience (arbitrary formalisms of QM?) with a concrete reality that only maths can describe (the Light?), but perhaps not ask maths (String Theory?) to replace our conceptual thinking."

Sorry I am not of any help to you,

Robert

Robert / Edwin

It was some help, thanks. But I believe if maths is consistent with reality the combination has an exponential power neither can have alone.

Edwin, I recall the bit that worried me most in your essay was 'mass' being fundamental, I applaud you and Robert for not letting this past as I did. ..I agree, but even further, that it is many superposed motions in a condensate energy potential medium below mass, that we will never see but can describe by it's qualities ('c'). It is the rest frame of the CMB (which defies the SR assumption I have found we can remove).

In a blog this morning I put the matter of SR/GR v simple refraction n in this way;

Mathematical physics has got so complex many have forgotten that the question was only;. What does 2 plus 2 make?

Can I put it like this; We have 2 problems;

1. We have this strange force we can't understand that slows light (so 'time'?!) and also seems to bend it (or bend 'space'?!), but there is no 'space' to bend, just a void. How on earth could it work.?? And the answer needs to be a 'real' quantum process for the holy grail of unifying physics!! No wonder we're a bit lost!

2. We have this known fact that refraction slows down light, (so travel time) and curves it's path in a gas or plasma, (which we know there is of lot of in space) to a degree subject to density (mass), by a known quantum mechanism. Why on earth can't we find it's effects anywhere?? All we can find is this theoretical time dilation and curved space stuff everywhere!

So can anyone see an answer to 2 plus 2?

The other problem is how on earth can an objects gravitational pull increase just because it's going 'faster' through a vacuum!? (Equivalence with inertial mass). Perhaps we could find out if only we could clear away that darned cloud of parasitic photolectrons with all that inertial mass that build up round the object progressively with speed!! (also oscillating progressively faster)

So I now pose the other key equation. What does 1 plus 1 make ....?

Peter

PS. Edwin, I'm just putting a paper in for consideration including and explaining toroid black holes, would you believe also with photographic evidence! I'd be interested in your views.

Hello dear Robert Spoljaric,

Congratulations for this rationalism and pragmatism.

Best Regards

Steve

Dear Peter,

Forgive me and please allow me to elaborate on what I said to you previously.

My approach to physics is to begin with foundations. Undermine the foundations and no harm done. If this cannot be done, then it seems more rational to begin with those foundations and work our way up to a theory. Thus, for me to comment (with any certainty) on a particular theory requires I intimately familiarise myself with that theory, and then work my way backwards to those foundations. However, it unrealistic for me to become intimately familiar with every theory, in order to see if they are consistent with these foundations. And that is the reason I hesitate to comment on any theory!

I admire both you and Dr. Klingman, and at the risk of contradicting what I said above, I will make a general comparison between his approach and mine.

Dr. Klingman assumes a 'primordial field,' and then seeks to derive all the laws of physics from the 'primordial field' itself. If successful it would be the realisation of Einstein's 'vision' of a Unified Field Theory. And if not then the assumption remains just that.

On the other hand my approach is different in that both 'the Light' and the 'Equivalence Identity' are synthetic a priori! (Kant is no doubt smiling.) Thus, it is from these synthetic a priori propositions that the 'propositions correlating with our sense experiences have yet to be derived.'

I hope that has cleared up my position for you, and leave you with these words from Einstein:

"[S]omething general will have to be said... about the points of view from which physical theories may be analyzed critically... The first point of view is obvious: the theory must not contradict empirical facts... The second point of view is not concerned with the relationship to the observations but with the premises of the theory itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the `naturalness' or `logical simplicity' of the premises (the basic concepts and the relations between these)... We prize a theory more highly if, from the logical standpoint, it does not involve an arbitrary choice among theories that are equivalent and possess analogous structures... I must confess herewith that I cannot at this point, and perhaps not at all, replace these hints by more precise definitions. I believe, however, that a sharper formulation would be possible."

--Einstein, "Autobiographical Notes", originally published in Schilpp, Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, 1949, and reprinted as a separate book in 1979.

Keep well,

Robert

Dear Steve,

Thanks for the compliment.

Cheers,

Robert

Hello,

A real pleasure to read your posts dear Robert and the words of Einstein,in fact he wrote in a very beautiful simplicity about truths.

....I love"....the theory must not contradict empirical facts...."SO ESSENTIAL!!!!

Like what the realism and its pure objectivity can dance with subjectives extrapolations....if and only if these subjectives analyzes are consistent and rational in their pure conclusions.

Best

Steve

Hello Steve,

I am happy you enjoy my writing. Perhaps it's fortunate that I am an 'outsider' and also not particularly smart, that is, I am a slow learner and it would take me a lot of time to master the mathematics needed to intelligently comment on the other essays.

Speaking of mathematics, consider that it is not even certain what mathematics will be needed to correctly express 'the Light' in a fully detailed theory. For example, Newton's definition of momentum can be differentiated to give Newton's Second Law, and similarly the classical relativistic momentum (using mass) can also be differentiated to give a 'relativistic Second Law'. However, the same cannot be said of the non-classical (discontinuous) relativistic momentum (with Planck's constant). Later we find that Newton's Second Law 'disappears'. Thus, from the viewpoint of this new 'paradigm' the concept of force is meaningless as is the concept of mass. Therefore, if my 'theory' is correct, then it mutually excludes every theory that does use the concept of force and/or mass. I am therefore at a loss to comment on any theory that makes use of those (defunct) concepts, or assumes classical calculus must be used to express the universe mathematically!

It is also hard, if not impossible, for me to convey what 'the Light' is verbally - unlike say Newton's 'laws' of motion - and so either the reader 'sees the Light' or they don't. I assume that is the reason for Dr. Klingman's reaction, and kind comments.

The history of physics would have been very different if Einstein had discovered both 'the Light' and the 'Equivalence Identity,' for everything he needed was in place for him to do so.

Cheers,

Robert

Hello Steve,

You are correct, realism is satisfied by the objectivity of both the Light and Equivalence Identity. The reason is of course because they inevitably follow on and thus inherit those attributes from Classical Physics.

I would just like to clarify the point about verbalising the Light: it is impossible to SIMPLY convey what 'the Light' is verbally, that is, to try and verbally express its 'beauty.' If you are not a physicist, then perhaps you should be!

Cheers,

Robert

Hello Robert,

You are welcome..

A beautiful thread, good luck in this contest.

I like your perception , verbalistic, of light.

This light is so spiritual in fact.

This light becomes mass in times space spherization in my humble opinion.

Regards

Steve

Hello Steve,

Something to amuse you. Einstein said he wanted to know God's thoughts, and the Bible tells us that God said, 'Let there be Light!'

Regards,

Robert

Peter,

That 2 2=? question you asked has something to do with a conservation law that nobody has ever talked about, conservation of cycles and degrees. I think I can get relativity to fall out of Doppler frequency shift. The idea is still percolating, so if it doesn't make sense right now, it's ok. But if it does make sense, then you three braniacs (Robert, Edwin and you) might beat me to the punch. Somehow, the photon energy E=hf should fall right into our laps because space-time is all about phase angles and frequency. Photons are about cycles per second. I can't make out the concept... yet.

Robert,

Your momentum and energy equations p=hfc^2/(c^2-v^2), the ones that you derived from the DeBroglie wavelength, those will plug right into time dilation. I have to go to work so I won't be able to work on it today.

Edwin didn't seem to like my humorous comment that God created the Big Bang by borrowing the energy from the quantum vacuum, E_BB (-E_BB), and converting the anti energy -E_BB into U_GR, the negative energy of gravity, U_GR. I told him that (W^1)(W)=1 are two operators. I said that God used W^-1 to operate on -E_BB to get U_GR, which is space-time itself. God would have kept W which would be his back door into our universe.

But that may or may not be necessary, I'm not sure. But the energy of the Big Bang should still cancel the energy of gravity.

Hello Jason,

I think you mean the 'generalised Compton wavelength' rather than 'de Broglie wavelength.' Also it is unnecessary to assume time-dilation if you think of the 'frequency of matter' as a clock. For now, relative to an observer as v approaches c, E approaches infinity, and frequency approaches 0. I do not like to speculate, and would rather let the physics be derived, but since you are thinking in terms of frequency you may like to consider extending the idea to hypothetical black hole 'singularities.' In this case the singularity is a point where E is infinite, and frequency is 0 - 'matter' is destroyed, and only 'un-manifested' infinite energy remains. Further, since 'the Light' shows symmetry between matter and antimatter, presumably the same should hold true for antimatter - a 'Penrose diagram?'

Regarding questions about the Big Bang, here is one: Assuming the Big Bang occurred, is the energy responsible for the Big Bang, the same energy responsible for the frequency of 'matter' now?

I like Edwin (Dr. Klingman), and I am pretty certain he has a sense of humour, and so for the fun of it, I quote (if I remember correctly) the following Biblical reference: In the beginning (before the Big Bang?) God said 'Let there be Light!'

Regards,

Robert

Hello Jason,

Just to qualify some of what I said above.

If we consider the frequency of 'matter' as a clock, then time-dilation is superfluos.

The speculation about the singularity may not be sound, for I took it to be the limit of matter approaching c.

In the Big-Bang question, 'now' could be taken to mean 'Block-time' - past, present, and future existing now. In this case, if the answer is 'yes' then sould that not mean that the 'beginning' of the universe is now? That is, the question of 'when' the universe began may be meaningless.

Excuse my haste in these replies,

Robert

Dear Robert,

To be honest, I totally forgot about Compton or DeBroglie wavelength. The idea that particles are just wave-functions with photons trapped inside is probably the kind of creativity that Steve was referring to. By using a funny little neumonic trick, I can manipulate difficult concepts more easily.

I looked at the Compton wavelength and noticed the derivaiton that's been clattering around my head for a while.

[math]E=hf=\frac{hc}{\lambda}=mc^2[/math]

Only, what I did was I rearranged it to get,

[math]m = \frac{hf}{c^2}[/math]

Then, I borrowed Newtons force equation, which might be illegal because I'm mixing Classical with quantum mechancis.

I made the impassioned argument that photon velocity does not change in a gravity field, but that frequency does change. So I popped off the

[math]\frac{d}{dt}[/math]

and basically derived what I call the Shift Photon Equation,

[math]F=\frac{hdf}{cdt}[/math]

It looks like an analogue to the Newtonian force equation, but it's for photon frequency.

The reason that time dilation is actually important is because gravity produces time dilation. So I argued that there will a time dilation experienced by a photon that travels from A to B. Assuming A and B are time dilation, then the frequency change obeys,

[math]T_B = \frac{T_A f_A}{T_B}[/math]

To make a long story short, these two seemingly unrelated derivations suggested to me that it might be possible to build a gravity beam or a tractor beam.

In your completely honest opinion, does my argument suggest that maybe someone should run the experiment to see if it really is a tractor beam?

Hello Jason,

Many years ago I saw a story about a 'tractor beam' that was inadvertently discovered by a researcher trying to use light to power nano-technology. The story was on a science show called "Quantum" on ABC in Australia.

The details are hazy, but I seem to remember something about the light not only rotating the nano-cog (or whatever it was) but also 'attracting' it. Whether or not other researchers have been able to reproduce those results, I don't know. I wish I could be more specific, but I think the researcher was (at the time) at the University of Queensland in Australia.

I do not like to criticise your creativity and ingenuity, and I am definitely not qualified to answer your question. As such, I can only comment from the perspective of my essay. What I said above should encourage you to pursue your idea, but my essay shows you should (at least) reconsider your use of Newton's Second Law.

Remember, Einstein dreamed of the day quantum mechanics would give way to a deterministic theory (God does not play dice). In terms of foundations that day has come, as far as I am concerned. Follow your dream, and do not let anyone tell you 'impossible,' until they can explicitly tell you why!

"I have a dream!"

Robert