INTRODUCING NEXUS: A QUANTUM THEORY OF SPACE-TIME, GRAVITY AND THE QUANTUM VACUUM

Hie

It is well known that it is notoriously difficult to quantize gravity. I have proposed an alternative approach to Quantum Gravity which has provided answers to fundamental questions such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy without resorting to exotic particles and hitherto unknown scalar fields. You can download my paper from this website www.scirp.org/journal/ijaa and provide a constructive critique

Best regards

Stuart Marongwe

    Mutasim, (& Stuart)

    There are ~7000 blueshifted galaxies, most in two groups nearby and around a plane tilted wrt the Milky Way. Ave velocity is 200km/s, highest 8000km/s. Many are quite small (satellites). There are many more with a blushifted half (rotating towards us).

    The full list can be found on the JPL's NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED). A good analysis from 2009 is here; Blogspot; Fitted Planes.

    The peculiar pattern is consistent with the predictions of a cyclic cosmological model which also predicts the CMB peculiar anisotropies, just confirmed by Planck, described in a model of 'discrete fields' (DFM) and in my essay here three years ago (2020 vision). Similar cyclic cosmologies have been suggested by Dicke, Peebles, Einstein, Penrose and Turok among others, many which the findings support, resolving the 'pre Big Bang' problem.

    Stuart,

    I'll try to find some time for a quick look and comment. Do check out and cemment on my well supported essay this year revealing an apparently powerful QM aspect of the DFM. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31419?sort=community 'The IQbit'.

    Best wishes

    Peter

      MOND ACCELERATION DERIVED FROM NEXUS

      Here is something that is bound to raise your eyebrows. If you read the published version of my paper you will find that I derive Hubbles law from Nexus in form v=H/k which is the induced constant rotational velocity by a graviton (Dark Matter).H is the Hubble constant and k is graviton wave vector in the nth quantum state. it can also be expressed as v=H/nK where K is the ground state wavevector K=H/c and c=speed of light.

      Therefore the acceleration induced by a graviton in the nth state on a test particle is v^2xk or H^2/nK. Thus the highest induced acceleration is by the ground state graviton where n=1. This is H^2/K = Hc ~ MOND acceleration.

      Stuart,

      You'll see I find manipulating symbols only approximates nature so use a very different dynamic geometrical approach to model how reality evolves. I can't then comment on your formulations, but it's more interesting to see where we've ended up from the very different routes taken. I liked your paper and found some broad areas of agreement, though also differences to falsify.

      For me, gravity emerged unheralded from a dynamic logic resolving the differences of SR and QM. SR is implemented by scattering at c from simple condensed fermion conjugate pairs (high coupling constant but low EM profile; n=1) and protons, with various fractions of bound molecular gas. Collectively 'plasma', which has interesting qualities including a '2-fluid' state.

      The condensation of the matter, directly related to orbital or rotational velocity as you say, creates the quantized G potential. So 'gravitons' are in that case ions, which are quite handy, also being Dark Matter and implementing 'curved space time' due to refraction, including the kinetic effects found due to relative plasma motion (as my prev. essay and recently confirmed by the VLB Array).

      Plasma density distribution of course relates to massive bodies, and also relative motion through the QV (shocks). I've tended to favour the Yukawa potential as it's sharper cut of matches the model and observation, but I'd take your advice on the implications of your proposal. There was too high a 'symbol density' for me to be confident about conceptual harmonics.

      To get a better glimpse of the 'discrete field' model I've derived you'd need to see my last 3 essays, starting with '2020 Vision' (estimating no change to doctrine before 2020). It's far from complete, but you'd better comment on it because if you think it's entire claptrap there's little point exploring further! Look at the conversations on the 'other' "Alternative Models" blog, or a more comprehensive joint paper published on the quantum optics foundations is open access here; arXiv; Resolution of Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies.

      Best wishes

      Peter

      8 days later

      Can two electrons exchange a photon at unlimited distances?

      This paper examines what the universe would look like if there was a distance limit to the quantum electrodynamic absorption and emission of photons.

      It uses Hubble's limit as the limit and the results are a very plausible alternate history of the universe.

      http://monadpad.com/bigbang.pdf

      16 days later

      I would like to propose an alternative model of the origin and evolution of the universe. It starts from the assumption that the universe is finite with a spacetime boundary. In the Big Bang model we implicitly assume the existence of a time boundary. The general theory of relativity introduces the concept of spacetime so that time and space do not have a separate independent existence. This implies the existence of a space boundary as well as a time boundary.

      All that exists in the universe lies with this spacetime boundary so it makes no sense to talk about "before the beginning" or "outside of the space boundary". It is the expansion of space at the boundary which is the cause of the general expansion of space which is observed. Going back in time towards time zero in this model means that we are contracting towards a zero volume, zero energy universe which is more satisfactory than the hot big bang singularity which proposes higher and higher energy densities as you approach time zero.

      In this expanding universe the total energy must remain at zero so that the change in spacetime curvature associated with the expansion of space must lead to matter formation. Another way of looking at this is to consider the Schwarzschild relationship between the amount of mass in a region and its radius: r = 2Gm/c2. As the universe expands there is a requirement for the formation of matter arising from the gravitational potential energy of space.

      This matter formation appears from observations to have taken place when the universe was 378,000 years old since the cosmic microwave background radiation has a redshift of z = 1,100. In this model the CMBR is directly associated with matter formation. The process of galaxy formation is proposed as the initial formation of galactic black holes due to the release of tension in the fabric of spacetime. Then star formation follows as a result of the galactic black-hole formation. The material in the disk or sphere of the galaxy causes the motion of stars in the galaxies to be as observed. No dark matter. No dark energy.

      This idea is explained a little more fully in:

      universe

      Richard

        a month later

        Richard,

        I may reply more fully later as I have myself being fooling around with this idea.

        You said, "...Changes in spacetime curvature can lead to matter formation with the total energy of the universe remaining at zero".

        One of my proposals is that the matter-energy content of the universe has been increasing with its radius. Since increase in radius translates to reducing spacetime curvature which you propose can lead to matter formation this appears to agree with my thinking.

        You did not consider another guide to our cosmological beginnings which is thermodynamics. If the second law applies, then in the beginning entropy must be zero, which also agrees with your model's "in which energy density tends to zero as time tends to zero". In agreement with the third law, temperature too will be zero at time zero even if hot immediately thereafter.

        Lastly, if you add an infinitesimal drop or fluctuation in energy to a system at absolute zero, i.e. T = 0, what could happen considering the thermodynamic equation dS = dE/T?

        My calculation indicates an initial temperature 1032K in accord with the Big bang model and an increase in entropy to an equilibrium value which seems to tend towards infinity.

        Akinbo

        Hi Akinbo,

        In the spacetime boundary model, spacetime is defined to exist within the boundary so the origin point of time zero, volume zero does not lie within the defined universe. We can talk about an evolution from any point within the spacetime boundary but at time zero, volume zero the rate of passage of time is stopped so that no event could occur.

        Now the way we have to treat the concept of energy in this closed system of the universe is to consider a conservation law which includes mass, energy and spacetime curvature. The equations of general relativity equating mass energy distribution to spacetime curvature can be turned into a conservation law. The total of mass, energy and spacetime curvature must always equate to zero.

        At a time before matter formation we have an expanding empty space due to the expansion at the boundary. Before matter formation we do not have any meaning to the concept of temperature or any forms of energy related to matter so we have an expanding universe where the only present energy form is the changing spacetime curvature due to the expansion at the boundary.

        As described in the document The evolution of the universe this ultimately must lead to matter formation to balance the total energy equation. As I see it the laws of thermodynamics would only start to apply when matter exists within in the universe. The cosmic microwave background radiation was emitted during the matter formation era and has a redshift of z =1,100. This implies that the initial period during which there was no matter within the universe lasted approximately 378,000 years.

        Can we apply the laws of thermodynamics to a galaxy formation era in which galaxies are formed directly from the stored energy of spacetime curvature? Before any galaxy formation event we would have zero entropy and zero energy and zero temperature. After the formation of a galaxy we can give meaning to the thermodynamic concepts of energy, entropy and temperature.

        If we exclude energy components due to spacetime curvature from our energy definition for the purposes of thermodynamic calculations then the galaxy formation event would appear as a sudden jump in energy and an increase in entropy. The evolution of the universe from a thermodynamic perspective can be viewed as a continuing process of energy release from spacetime towards the formation of mass and energy with a corresponding increase in entropy.

        Richard

        Richard,

        From your paper: "As the universe continued to expand the mass of each galaxy will then increase", "The implication of the spacetime boundary model of the universe is that there is a definite relationship between the volume of the universe and the mass contained within the universe. This relationship is modelled using the Schwartzchild Radius", "Taking the boundary of the universe to be at the Schwartzchild radius implies a linear relationship between the mass in the universe and the radius of the universe following the initial formation of galaxies"...

        I cannot but agree with your model. You may want to view my humble contributions on this A and B. A "little voice" tells me we are right.

        Akinbo

        Akinbo,

        Thank you for taking the time to look at my paper and comment. I had a look at your paper A to see the different approaches that arrived at a similar conclusion.

        The main starting point for the spacetime boundary model has been an instinctive rejection of the finite with no boundary hypothesis underlying the big bang theory. How can a finite universe with an increasing volume have no space boundary? I have read all the explanations of this and none of them make sense to me.

        So I adopted a finite plus spacetime boundary assumption to see where it leads. This first thing that this does is to invalidate the cosmological principle since a universe with a space boundary could not be spatially homogeneous and isotropic. This means that the Friedmann equations cannot be used as these equations assume that the universe is spatially homogeneous and isotropic.

        However, the advantage of the space boundary hypothesis is that it gives us an explanation for the expansion of space and also it allows the consideration of variation in spacetime curvature as a component of the total energy equation comprising mass energy and spacetime curvature. I do not think one could apply this approach to total energy conservation if the assumption is that the universe is finite with no boundary and spatially homogeneous and isotropic.

        There is also a different perspective on the nature of mass and spacetime which fits well with the spacetime boundary model.

        This can be found at:

        The unification of physics

        The nature of mass

        Richard

        11 days later
        7 days later
        3 months later
        a month later

        Most sensitive dark matter detector reaches critical phase. I'm predicting that high energy particles will be detected coming from dark matter annihilation at the center of the earth, other planets and sun as well as beyond.

        Dark matter hunt: US LUX experiment reaches critical phase

        Also, I'm predicting that astrophysical neutrinos are also created from dark matter annihilation in a similar way to cosmic radiation.

        Exotic Space Particles Slam into Buried South Pole Detector

        Cosmic rays themselves are a mystery. The most energetic among them are thought to originate in the same processes that spawn astrophysical neutrinos. Yet because cosmic rays (which, despite the name, are actually high-energy particles) are charged, they travel curved paths, shaped by magnetic fields, through the universe. As a result, they do not preserve information about where they came from. Studying neutrinos is a way to try to understand the origin of high-energy cosmic rays, which are somehow sped up to nearly light-speed in some sort of cosmic particle accelerator. Just how this happens is an open question that shows just how much we do not know about the most violent processes in the universe. "This is the biggest mystery of our century," says Toshihiro Fujii, a cosmic-ray researcher at the University of Chicago's Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics. Fujii was not involved in IceCube, but says its findings will aid his goal of understanding cosmic rays.

        a month later

        Israel Perez and Peter Jackson from Feb. 5, 2013

        Yes. It's called the STOE.

        The Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) is a self-consistent model that was derived from considerations of galaxies and galaxy clusters. The STOE explains many mysterious phenomena from diverse observational disciplines. The STOE is simpler and more encompassing than other models. An important part of the STOE is to show the correspondence to general relativity and quantum mechanics. This allows the successes of the current models to be incorporated into the STOE while explaining problem observations.

        The STOE posits spiral galaxies are sources and elliptical galaxies are sinks of our universe. The sources are continually injecting the constituents of our universe and sinks are continually ejecting the constituents of our universe. This explains the cooling flows and the differing observations between spiral and elliptical galaxies. The infall of matter in spiral galaxies is modeled as a cooling flow, also.

        The simplest structure that can conceptually produce a wide range of differing observations is an interaction of two different types of entities. The simplest form of the small is light. Light in experiments suggests two types of behavior, particle-like and wave-like. Therefore, the STOE posits two components and their interaction produce differing structures, more complex objects, and the diverse behavior observed in our universe. One component that can produce wave-like behavior is a plenum named after Descartes' plenum. The plenum is infinitely divisible and ubiquitous. The density of the plenum produces a scalar potential $\rho$ field.

        The particle-like component of our universe is called a hod. Hods cause a static warp in the $\rho$ field in accordance with the Newtonian spherical property. ``Static'' such as caused by a stationary electron in a stationary electromagnetic field because hods are neither a Source nor a Sink of energy. Hods merely modifies the $\rho$ field. Because the $\rho$ field near hods must attract other hods, the hods decrease the $\rho$ field. Only the divergence of the plenum density acts on only the surface of the hod. The Michelson-Morley experiment indicates the flow of the plenum has no effect on the hod perpendicular to its surface. The Michelson-Morley experiment is also why the Lorentz Ether Theory and gravitational ether developed. Therefore, the plenum is not a fluid. The limit of the speed of light implies the hod is two-dimensional because that presents a zero cross section in the direction of travel through the plenum. The minimum plenum density is zero. Therefore, the hod surface marks a discontinuity in the plenum of zero $\rho$.

        The forces are applied by contact rather than action-at-a-distance. The forces are hod to plenum, plenum to plenum, and plenum to hod.

        Supporting this conjecture is the observation that there are two types of physical energy, potential and kinetic. Hods cause potential energy. The plenum causes kinetic energy. The interaction is a third form of force in our universe that may be likened to ``spirit'', which is what Liebniz was attempting to show the "spirit's" existence.

        The hods' influence on the plenum implies some plenum is ``bound'' to the hod and causes close hods to be bound to other hods. This structure is matter. The plenum content of matter causes the inertial characteristics. The hods cause the gravitational effects. The equality of potential energy and kinetic energy in matter results in the weak equivalence principle. The STOE speculates the amount of plenum bound to hods depends on the $\rho$ environment of the matter. The relative amount of plenum per hod determines the equivalence principle.

        Matter or bodies are structures of hods and plenum. The divergence of the $\rho$ field on the surface of a hod then causes matter attraction according to established gravitational physics and causes the frequency change of electromagnetic signals.

        The $\rho$ at a point in space is the heat equation solution for point sources, sinks, and matter in a three dimensional space.

        My book (self published) describes the history and current STOE. My Chapter 14 of "Black Holes and Galaxy Formation", 2010, eds. A. D. Wachter and R. J. Propst, Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (New York, USA) lists several speculations for future investigation.

        I am an independent researcher and am the only one working on the STOE.

        My next efforts are to examine QSOs and the interference pattern for single photons. If QSOs are as H. Arp ["Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science", Aperon, (Montreal, Canada)] suggests, then they should improve the redshift-Cepheid distance correlation according to the STOE.

        A key to understanding the small is to understand light. The Fractal Principle suggests the understanding must be consistent with everyday world understanding. The wave-particle duality and Schrodinger's cat ideas fail the Fractal Principle. The STOE model of photon interference patterns produced good correlation to light observations. Its weakness was explaining experiments with one photon at a time in the experiment. The current calculation needed several photons at a time in the experiment even if only one passed through one of the slits at a time. Afshar et al. (2007) used a low intensity light such that only one photon at a time could be in the experiment. I think this is because the photon interacts with the mask and screen. Photons are obeying Bohm and the TIQM model of quantum mechanics. Because the plenum waves travel much faster than photons, The backward-in-time wave of TIQM may be the reflection of the induced plenum wave from the mask and screen.

        Hodge