Hi Ray,

Okay, that's again really useful info for me and I can see where you all seem to fit with one another. I've got problems with the very basics which the standard model is based on though. I'm sure QED is flawed in it's mathematical assumptions after reading the Wikipedia entry. Feynman himself was unhappy with renormalisation. It has 'fudge factor' written all over it imo. I'm just about to indulge in the works of Dirac. I saw a tv programme on BBC4 last night which featured the unusual indivdual. It's an interesting story which I intend to pursue and give my own take on where the history of quantum dynamics went awry.

Best wishes,

Alan

    • [deleted]

    • Post #94

    Hi Alan,

    Dirac was Prof Emeritus at Florida State University when I was an undergrad student there. I came up with the early version of my Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory (QSGUT) in January 1979 as a 20-year-old Senior. My friends thought I should show Dirac the idea, but I was chicken. I regret that now... He and his family are buried within 50 yards of my grandparents, so I visit his grave on occasion. I am a huge fan of Dirac's.

    There is Renormalization and the Renormalization Group Equations. I'm also not a big fan of Renormalization - basically dividing one infinity by another infinity to get a finite observable. My argument is that infinity cannot exist within a finite Observable Universe. As a grad student, I studied Renormalization closely. I wanted to overthrow it in favor of my own QSGUT - as I saw these two ideas being conflicting competitors. However, I can honestly say that Renormalization makes about as much sense as does L'Hopital's rule. I finally decided that if Renormalization and QSGUT are both "true", then the Correspondance Principle demands overlapping observables to be equal, and this hybrid concept was the origin of Variable Coupling Theory in my book.

    Regarding the Renormalization Group Equations (RGE's), these tell us the Perturbation Theory changes of couplings with energy scale. They are as legitimate as any perturbation or Taylor Series expansion approach can be. IMHO, the most awkward part of the RGE's is the Strong Coupling. Because the Strong Coupling IS NOT much less than unity, it is a poor candidate for these types of power series approximations. In my latest paper on QSGUT, I model the Strong Force differently (with Fermi rather than Bose statistics - which implies a Cooper-pair-like phenomenon at an unobservable small scale), and get results that appear to be more accurate without using the Renormalization Group Equations.

    Perhaps some of these concepts are "fudge factors" that were required because of improper modeling...

    Regarding the Standard Model (SM) in general. I learned it so that I could try to rewrite it. A TOE should not be as ugly as SU(3) x U(1) x SU(2). This spinning torus/ tetrahedra model implies a TOE similar to SO(32) ~ E8 x E8*. If you study Garrett Lisi's E8 TOE, you might agree with me that there is a certain amount of beauty encoded in these geometrical lattice-like "TOE's" such as the Gosset lattice and the Torus/ tetrahedra lattices.

    Have Fun!

    Dr. Cosmic Ray

    Hi again Ray,

    Okay it is a small world then. Your experience as an undergraduate of Dirac's is amazing. It's easy to forget the recentness of the latest scientific discoveries. From the tv documentary I saw, I liked the way he said that he wanted to visualise the mathematics behind the current scientific edifice.

    I just realised from my quick Wikipedia research that Maxwell's equations are the cornerstone of QED. Then I realised that Maxwell based his equations on Newton's law of gravity. The thing is, I've found good circumstancial evidence which pulls the rug from under Newton's equation, namely, the 'inclination hypothesis'. I've posted my findings on the essay blog site for others to comment on. I'm going to rewrite Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism with a totally new picture of reality at the outset. A simulation model is in the making imo. Wish me luck.

    Kind regards,

    Alan

    • [deleted]

    • Post #96

    Hi Alan,

    I've heard you talking about your "Inclination Hypothesis", but I haven't read your idea yet. A screw has stiffness that allows it to impart lateral motion, and perhaps cause extra inclination. But what if that "screw" is a flimsy set of twisted sewing threads? It would not impart any significant effect, IMHO. Also - be careful taking on Newton. Newton's Laws work very well in their realm of applicability.

    Have Fun!

    • [deleted]

    • Post #97

    p.s. - I recently watched a TV special on the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715. It related a reduction in the number of Sun Spots with a Little Ice Age.

    Have Fun!

    Hi Ray,

    Don't confuse the 'inclination hypothesis' with the Archimedes screw model of the graviton/anti-graviton. It's something different. I've combined the ice age mystery with the gravity problem. It works a treat. Well worth a look, see the blog here.

    Yes, the tv specials on our climate are a little predictable unfortunately. There's much that isn't known and much that simply doesn't stack-up. I recommend this book by Professor Taylor (2011) 'The Dance of Air and Sea:

    How Oceans, Weather, and Life Link Together' for something more up-to-date and well written.

    Cheers,

    Alan

    My Astronomy lecturer once said that if I thought I had a t.o.e in the making then it needs to explain the mystery of the ice ages. I think I've done just that. I'm 100% convinced that this proposed Inclination Hypothesis will be 100x more enlightening than the Archimedes screw model for the graviton/anti-graviton. It's a real eye-opener this one.

    The precession of Mercury can be explained in the same way that the 100,000 year glacial cycle can be explained by the inclination hypothesis that has reduced tide raising forces with increased inclination. The reduced tides lowers the distribution of warm equatorial waters to the poles, which induces glaciation in the high latitudes. The combination of these two papers Spectrum of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity and The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change can be used to reconcile the 1,800 year cycle to the 1,470 year cycle seen in physical data Timing of Abrupt Climate Change: A Precise Clock.

    I've scanned a quick doodle which shows how the planet Mercury, due to it's high eccentricity, has very different distances above and below the orbital plane when nearing the planet and when furthest away. This means that the tide raising forces will be very different from one half of it's inclination orbit compared to the other half, despite it only having an inclination angle of around 6 degrees. This difference in gravitational forces from the calculated Newtonian forces is the reason for the discrepancy of it's orbital precession. I need to do the calcs, I know.

    This proposed increase in gravitational attraction on the rotational plane of a celestial body has a surprising number of possible examples. This article on the Pan and Atlas moons of Saturn mentions the problem of their formation from ring debris alone, it simply wouldn't happen under the gravity laws. They say that a gravitational 'seed' would be needed which is exactly the same conclusion that the Harvard professors came to when analysing their 360 mile wide innermost core of the Earth Earth's New Center May Be The Seed Of Our Planet's Formation.

    Any comments on this new combination of ideas?

    Kind regards,

    Alan

    P.S In the doodle attached I should have written d1>>d2Attachment #1: 3_Doodle.jpg

    Note to self:

    Why did Newton miss this obvious explanation for the spooky action-at-a-distance? Who knows. Anyway, I just discovered that Descartes had been toying with the very same ideas in 1644, and was one of the very first to draw the field lines of a magnet using this methodology.

    It implies that the atomic nucleus dipole emits both gravitons and anti-gravitons and that all modern physics based on Newton's equation are simple incorrect, despite Einstein's attempt to rectify the situation (he just made it worse in fact, oh dear(!)).Attachment #1: Descartes_magnetic_field.jpg

      Implications are that both protons and neutrons are gravity dipoles. A greater flux density of gravitons is emmited from one side whilst a greater flux density of anti-gravitons is emmited from the other. Here's a simulation graphic of a fluctuating dipole from Wikipedia which I find a helpful visual aid.

      The simple doodles I've given above don't account for the wider field lines observed emanating from the centre of the magnet. It implies the field strength is stronger at the centre of a bar magnet. I've deduced two simple reasons for this phenomena. See attached. One correlates with a diagram I glimpsed by Winterberg just recently which is a good sign of progress.

      I've combined the conclusions from the Inclination Hypothesis i.e. that the gravity field is stronger on the plane of rotation of a body with the Archimedes screw model of the graviton/anti-graviton. It begs the question of whether a graviton is in a loop which gives the anti-graviton effect i.e. like the wraparound universe giving dark energy from attractive gravitons or are different chirality gravitons actually emitted in the first place.Attachment #1: Faster_Spin_Possiblity.jpgAttachment #2: Axis_Change_Possiblity.jpg

      • [deleted]

      • Post #108

      The U-shaped proton will have the effect of bending the base quark into a lens shape. This will focus the graviton/anti-graviton emissions into a particle, the electron, which will then continue to travel outward as a discrete unit due it's new configuration.Attachment #1: Quark_Lens_Creates_Electron.jpg

      Summary of author's foundational new ideas in physics:

      Within essay:

      The formation of structure before the 'big bang'.

      (ii) The Archimedes screw model for a particle graviton.

      (iii) Gravitons travelling around a wraparound universe can mimic a particle force of repulsion and act as an explanation for dark energy.

      During discussion period with other authors:

      (i) Anti-gravitons can model a particle force of repulsion.

      (ii) Descartes was using the same helical screw ideas to solve magnetism.

      (iii) My previously devised Inclination Hypothesis can explain the galaxy rotation curve anomaly currently attributed to galactic halo of dark matter.

      (iv) My previous devised Inclination Hypothesis has the potential to explain the recession of the moon away from the Earth.

      Before essay which wasn't included:

      (i) The Inclination Hypothesis which combines the ice age problems and a new gravity model to explain anomalies with each current model.

      (ii) The unearthing of research finds which show how Amazonian monkeys fully particpated in the megafauna of the last ice age.

      (iii) The hypothesis that the sun is stronger during the ice age (due to reduced cloud cover?) and therefore the vegetation more abundant to explain worldwide ice age megafauna. The drop in temperature being due to a severe drop in global ocean tidal strengths leading to glaciation feedback scenario.

      (iv) The analysis of structure before the 'big bang' is likely to result in a gravitational compression of the opposing structures against the force of creation. This means that it isn't necessary for the structures to travel around the universe as proposed in the essay, just the early graviton emissions. This model doesn't require such a near perfect spherical hypersphere and therefore seems intuitively more likely.

      I wish to thank FXQi for the opportunity to express my work to a wider and more professional scientific audience. I'm also indebted to a number of author's for taking the time to engage with my enquiries and for their much valued feedback and inspiration.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #111

      My very latest thoughts:

      The Amazonian megafuana could have been due to the proposed event of 40,000 BP. Speculation has existed for a long time that a massive body close encounter has occurred in the Earth's recent past, possibly in the order of a few moon diameters from the Earth's surface, creating a flexure of the lithosphere. A temporarily disrupted magnetic field would allow much more cosmic rays and solar radiation to reach the surface during this time. Three main pieces of evidence point to this conclusion:

      (i) The frozen Siberian mammoths in near standing positions with buttercups in their mouths, dated to around 40,000 BP. This would fit with the sudden liquefaction and elevation of the landmass into freezing air temperatures above.

      (ii) The DNA analysis of the first human colonisation of the Australian continent all converge on the date of 40,000 BP. This fits with the hypothesis of a temporary land bridge between S.E Asia and the Australian land mass, crossing the mammalian/marsupial Wallace line.

      (iii) The enormous guano mud flow in the high Niah Cave complex of Borneo dated to around 40,000 BP has been attributed to an inexpicable sudden influx of a large volume of water. This is consistent with a mega tsunami which would have been associated with the flexing of the Earth's crust due to the gravitational close encounter of the celestial body.

      Take note that the other non-DNA dating techniques used would be adversly affected by a dramatic change in the Earth's magnetic field due to this proposed event. This should cause the previously given dates earlier than 40,000 BP to be treated with renewed suspicion and require a complete re-evaluation of their reliability.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #112

      Yuri has just sent me this very intersting link Physicists discover new way to visualize warped space and time (April 11, 2011). I sent a feedback to the PhysOrg editors explaining that the research and modelling can just as easily be applied to an Archimedes screw model of gravity in empty space. Because the particle screw can model a force of repulsion as well, this makes it even more relevant to the Electrostatic and Magnetic forces, compared to the mainstream concept of space-time.