# Thread: Spacetime and matter as emergent phenomena, unified field theory

1. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,011

2. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,011
Originally Posted by Ans
In next part, I think to post "Elementary Particles" section and "Wave Function and Expansion Functions of the Field" section, with answers to your questions to that part, to discuss wave function before Newton laws.
As I said previously, your "Wave Function and Expansion Functions of the Field" section has no wave function in it so do not cut and paste a debunking of your theory.

3. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,011
Originally Posted by Ans
In next part, I think to post "Elementary Particles" section ....
That "Elementary Particles" section has problems. It is assertions and promises that are not kept. You never get to the known properties of elementary particles such as spin.
There is the "Particles with Spin" section but there is no spin in it. Writing "I will call this parameter a spin" does not make that parameter spin. Spin is not "a spatial orientation" or a direction as implied in the section.

Spin is basically a symmetry of the wave function Ψ . A particle with spin 1/2 has a wave function which when rotated becomes -Ψ. This leads to measurement of spin being quantized. Measure the spin of an electron in the x direction and it will be 1/2. Measure the spin of another electron in the y direction and it will be 1/2. Measure the spin of another electron in the z direction and it will be 1/2.

That leads us to "The Dirac equation" section which uses your incorrect spin and thus is wrong. Dirac's derivation of his equation is not your theory. You do not derive the Dirac equation independently from your theory.

4. Ans
Member
Join Date
Sep 2018
Posts
57
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Read my previous posts where the obvious logical errors or flaws in already posted parts have been listed
I not found anything about anthropic principle, causality principle or anything about previous part with derivation of emergent spacetime. Ok, I will post new part.

5. Ans
Member
Join Date
Sep 2018
Posts
57
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Your actual assertion was that you stated an experiment to test your assertion so:
IF08: State your experiment that tests your assertion: no spacetime is possible without observer. Give the results of running that experiment.
As I shown in one of previous answers, such experiment is logically impossible. For such cases, prediction of theory can bbe checked only indirectly, withusage of other experiments supporting theory.

Well, each of the questions is in parts ahead. Next part not answer to any of the questions, but prepare ground for answers.

6. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,731
Originally Posted by Ans
As I shown in one of previous answers, such experiment is logically impossible. For such cases, prediction of theory can bbe checked only indirectly, withusage of other experiments supporting theory.

Well, each of the questions is in parts ahead. Next part not answer to any of the questions, but prepare ground for answers.
I personally would strongly prefer that you stop this "ground preparation" habit of yours and simply answer the questions asked. Your method is to inflict walls of philosophical text, which will not convince. We know better than you what it is that we need to see in order to be convinced, so please answer what we ask. We're perfectly capable of asking follow-up questions if clarification is needed.

7. Ans
Member
Join Date
Sep 2018
Posts
57
Originally Posted by Reality Check
That "Elementary Particles" section has problems. It is assertions and promises that are not kept. You never get to the known properties of elementary particles such as spin.
There is the "Particles with Spin" section but there is no spin in it. Writing "I will call this parameter a spin" does not make that parameter spin. Spin is not "a spatial orientation" or a direction as implied in the section.

Spin is basically a symmetry of the wave function Ψ . A particle with spin 1/2 has a wave function which when rotated becomes -Ψ. This leads to measurement of spin being quantized. Measure the spin of an electron in the x direction and it will be 1/2. Measure the spin of another electron in the y direction and it will be 1/2. Measure the spin of another electron in the z direction and it will be 1/2.

That leads us to "The Dirac equation" section which uses your incorrect spin and thus is wrong. Dirac's derivation of his equation is not your theory. You do not derive the Dirac equation independently from your theory.
Part of your questions better to discuss when discussing part with Dirac equations.

First, equation 22 () is about symmetry. In that part it may be not clearly written, it is discussed more in part "Completeness of Functions of Elementary Particles".
Equations from that part, related to spin, show that spin in my theory is also about symmetry.

Equation 38:

For spin 1/2 there is equation 39, clearly showing symmetry:

8. Ans
Member
Join Date
Sep 2018
Posts
57
I have to go now, will post new part in next several hours.

9. Ans
Member
Join Date
Sep 2018
Posts
57
Elementary Particles

It is known that our Universe contains elementary particles. It is necessary to find out what elementary
particles correspond to in the model of this theory. On the basis of the observed properties of
elementary particles, I introduce the following definition of an elementary particle within the framework
of the proposed theory:
An elementary particle is a part of the expansion of the scalar field of the Meta-universe on the
emergent space, which is stable at least some emergent time, interacts in the emergent space-time with
other elementary particles as one.

10. Ans
Member
Join Date
Sep 2018
Posts
57
Wave Function and Expansion Functions of the Field

As it is known, the concept of wave function is one of the central concepts of quantum mechanics. Is it
possible to find out what the wave function corresponds to within the framework of the proposed
theory?
Considering the properties and behavior of the wave function, it can be seen that it roughly corresponds
to the expansion functions. The difference lies in the requirement of normalization and complexvaluedness.
The square of the modulus of the wave function corresponds to the probability density of
observing the particle. In order to calculate the probabilities of observing particles directly on the basis
of the equation of the fundamental scalar field, it is necessary to have this equation and be able to use it
to calculate the probabilities. So far, neither that nor that is not present, and the way how to combine
decomposition functions and wave function is searched in the assumption, that the further
development of the theory will allow to make such calculations. If we assume that the expansion
functions are quasiperiodic and the probability of observing the particle at any point depends on the
square of the amplitude of the function and does not depend on the phase of the function, we obtain an
analog of the wave function. Under the above assumptions, in order to find the probability of
observation at any point, the phase of the expansion function must be eliminated. How can I do that?
Lets consider the function . This function may be rewritten as . The square of the amplitude a(x) is obtained by the following formula , here is conjugate function.
From this perspective I conclude that real part of the wave function corresponds to the
expansion functions up to a certain normalization factor a, which can be different for different particles:

Here is the wave function, the summation is over the particles where k is the number of the particle and by the particle expansion functions, where i is the function number for the k-th particle. is the normalization factor for the k-th particle.
The imaginary part of the wave function corresponds to the phase of the quasiperiodic part of the
expansion.

11. Ans
Member
Join Date
Sep 2018
Posts
57
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Then it will be simple for you to show that here ("matching" the Ψ though sounds dubious).
The way I was taught about the wave function is that it is a mapping of every possible state of the system to a complex value. In position space, every possible position of a particle has a corresponding complex value. In momentum space, every possible momentum of a particle has a corresponding complex value.
As for complex value - in case if function contains periodic part, it can be represented as amplitude and phase, two values. With usage of complex numbers, the two values may be combined into one complex value. And it even allow to calculate square of amplitude more easilty.

If basis of expansion of fundamental scalar field is complete, it means on any hyperplane of fundamental space fundamental field may be decomposed to basis, represented as sum of functions of expansion. So, it means it can be represented as state vector.
Any object may consists only from that functions. It means it can be only in this set of states.

Here we come close to another complex part, interaction of particles and problem of measurement in my theory.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
ETA: The "Wave Function and Expansion Functions of the Field" section in your PDF does not show that your Ψ is wave function Ψ. There is no justification for assumptions of "quasiperiodic" or probability in your expansion function. This is in fact ruled out by a previous section where your Ψ appears in an incorrect "Newton's second and third laws are obtained" derivation (remember that you begin with basically F=ma). In classic physics, particles can have any position (are not "quasiperiodic") and their positions are deterministic (no probabilities).
I not need to justify that functions of expansion are periodic or quasiperiodic, I use different approach.
I have equation of scalar field, equation 1, but exact equation is not known. Next, proposed way how to build effective spacetime based on the field and on hyperplanes. Theory should be consistent with observations and experiments. So, here comes question - how tthe functions of expansion should look to satisfy observations? Seems as they should be quasiperiodic, something like a(x)*cos(x). If they would have such look, in such case complex numbers in quantum mechanic can be easily explained in scope of my theory.
Assuming that functions of expansion should have such way, place restriction on possible equation of fundamental scalar field.
Next about probability. The problem is more complex, because problem of measurements currently is not fully solved in the theory. So, I make assumption here that it should behave in such way, and further development of mathematical model of theory should resolve it. Both assumptions place restrictions on possible equation of fundamental scalar field and it would help to find the equation. Further development of theory may result in finding that equation of scalar field, statisfying to all requirements, is not possible. In that case, it would mean falsification of theory. As of now, it is open questions for further development of theory.

As for classic physics and their positions, transition from microlevel to macrolevel is same as in quantum physics. I would add more than will post part with derivation of Newton's laws.

12. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,011
Originally Posted by Ans
...For spin 1/2 there is equation 39, clearly showing symmetry:

Ignorance about spin in physics, Ans. Read the article or my post again (A particle with spin 1/2 has a wave function which when rotated becomes -Ψ). You have no Ψ in those equations! You do not perform a rotation of Ψ. You do not show that a oration produces -Ψ. You do not show that 2 rotations gives the original Ψ.

13. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,011
Originally Posted by Ans
As I shown in one of previous answers, such experiment is logically impossible. For such cases, prediction of theory can bbe checked only indirectly, withusage of other experiments supporting theory.
Ok: question IF08 is moot.
Cut and pasting from your PDF will debunk your own theory. The reason for the questions is that your PDF does not do what you say it does. So far:
IF01: You do not derive Newton's laws - the PDF starts with Newton's laws.
IF02: You do not derive the Schrodinger equation, e.g. your Ψ is not a wave function Ψ.
IF03: You do not derive the Dirac equation mainly because the PDF does not have actual spin in physics.
IF04: No derivation of Maxwell's equations at all in the PDF. It looks like for that you will have to do more cut and pastes from another of your many PDFs (and translate it).
IF05: Imagining what your hyperplane does is not derivation of relativity of simultaneity.
IF06: There is no curved spacetime in your PDF. You have Euclidean space and a hyperplane which are two flat spaces.
IF07: There is no Minkowski spacetime in your PDF. Your "Special Relativity Theory" is unsupported assertions about the postulates of SR arising from your theory.

14. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,011
Originally Posted by Ans
As for complex value - ....
Another irrelevant post stating what we already know.
This is the wave function Ψ in quantum mechanics, Ans. It is not the mathematical breakdown of a periodic function into real and imaginary parts.
Repeating what you think does not turn a real valued state vector into the wave function Ψ in quantum mechanics.

15. Ans
Member
Join Date
Sep 2018
Posts
57
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Another irrelevant post stating what we already know.
This is the wave function Ψ in quantum mechanics, Ans. It is not the mathematical breakdown of a periodic function into real and imaginary parts.
Another post with vague assertions without any specific details.
In my theory I propose existense of more fundamental level of nature than spacetime observable by us. Obviously, it leads to difference in interpretations of wave function between quantum mechanics and my theory. It is expectable, and it cannot be used as argument against my theory. If equations are differs, it can be used as argument. Currently we discuss non relativistic case. I not see any differences for the case in equations between my theory and QM. If you see any, may you write where exactly you see differencies, which equations are different?

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Repeating what you think does not turn a real valued state vector into the wave function Ψ in quantum mechanics.
What you argue with? With my assertion that vector with two values, amplitude and phase, can be turned into one complex number? Or you see something in equations with differencies between my theory and QM?

16. Ans
Member
Join Date
Sep 2018
Posts
57
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Ignorance about spin in physics, Ans. Read the article or my post again (A particle with spin 1/2 has a wave function which when rotated becomes -Ψ). You have no Ψ in those equations! You do not perform a rotation of Ψ. You do not show that a oration produces -Ψ. You do not show that 2 rotations gives the original Ψ.
May you explain why you think I have no Ψ in the equations? If it is because you think wave function and that I propose as wave function have different properties, than let's wait finish of that discussion to return to discussion about spin later.

Interesting that from one of my previous posts directly follows that particle with spin 1/2 has a wave function which when rotated becomes -Ψ:
if than it means p=-1

17. Ans
Member
Join Date
Sep 2018
Posts
57
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Ok: question IF08 is moot.
Cut and pasting from your PDF will debunk your own theory. The reason for the questions is that your PDF does not do what you say it does. So far:
IF01: You do not derive Newton's laws - the PDF starts with Newton's laws.
IF02: You do not derive the Schrodinger equation, e.g. your Ψ is not a wave function Ψ.
IF03: You do not derive the Dirac equation mainly because the PDF does not have actual spin in physics.
IF04: No derivation of Maxwell's equations at all in the PDF. It looks like for that you will have to do more cut and pastes from another of your many PDFs (and translate it).
IF05: Imagining what your hyperplane does is not derivation of relativity of simultaneity.
IF06: There is no curved spacetime in your PDF. You have Euclidean space and a hyperplane which are two flat spaces.
IF07: There is no Minkowski spacetime in your PDF. Your "Special Relativity Theory" is unsupported assertions about the postulates of SR arising from your theory.
I am not against debunk of my theory, if it is wrong. However, so far, I not seen arguments which prove it.
As for the IF0X, I not agree with any of your statements. But before move to discussion of next part, necessary to discuss current part with wave function. Obviously, if it is wrong, there is no sense to discuss further parts. But I see mostly vague assertions and no serious arguments.

18. Originally Posted by Ans
In my theory I propose existense of more fundamental level of nature than spacetime observable by us. Obviously, it leads to difference in interpretations of wave function between quantum mechanics and my theory. It is expectable, and it cannot be used as argument against my theory.
Ans,

You are not a moderator. You may not dictate what arguments can or cannot be used to refute your claims. In the ATM forum, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that your theory is more useful than the mainstream theory. Refutations based on mainstream theories are to be expected and you must deal with them.

I have closed this thread while you are suspended. If you wish to continue upon your return, please report this post to ask that it be reopened. If you do so, please concentrate on defending your claims, according to our rules. If you do not wish to continue, your thread will remain closed.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•