Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 43

Thread: Theory of Everything wannabe

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36

    Theory of Everything wannabe

    Preface
    The presented ideas are summarized at the next link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1904.0272v1.pdf, however I put everything in this thread.
    It is a heuristic try to give the simplest possible description of nature based on classical physics while trying to avoid disputing QM nor relativity.
    I do not presume that the presented ideas are a theory. The reasons that they cannot be a theory at this level are:
    * the presented ideas are still not shown to be related to nature, it just aims at showing the possibility of such relation.
    * they are bold guesses (not prooven)
    * there is no option today to do the calculations to falsify/proove the ideas due to high computation power required (however it is reasonable that in the future it will be possible)
    Despite that, the reasons why the presented ideas should be taken seriously are:
    * Theoretically, every claim can be prooven/falsify using mathematical tools (although may not be possible today)
    * I think that the presented ideas are not contradictory to current observational knowledge, at least there is no proofe of contradiction
    * The presented ideas do not allow fine tunning ('epicycles'). There are just 2 dimensionfull scaling constants which is the bare minimum possible for any theory. each other constant should be calculatable.
    In other worlds: either it is complete description or it is nonesense.


    Introduction
    I believe that by presenting a very simple and specific set of axioms and in trying to generalize it as much as possible, a new unexamined thread is presented.
    Some of the major merits of classical physics such as natural support of relativity and QM violation of Bell inequality are addressed by this manuscript.
    In the generalization process many conjectures are presented without proof, however the question which should be asked at this scope is not if they are true but if they are possible.
    The main motivation for introducing a model with many unproven conjectures is the rare chance to suggest a discussion that can lead to the calculation of all physical constants by using a very compact formulation.
    Regardless of this the presented ideas can be used as a classical analogy to QM and they can help to refine the ongoing discussion about QM interpretations.

    The Model
    Axioms
    * 3-d euclidean space and classical simultaneous time are assumed
    * There are numerous identical size-less dot particles
    * Each dot particle is attracted to all other dot particles by inverse square law:

    These axioms are the only ones, no other interactions are assumed, no other properties of the dot particles are assumed and no other particles are assumed.

    Starting Conditions
    Consider infinite ’sea’ of dot particles with exact statistical behavior everywhere, uniform density and the same velocities distribution.
    The system is assumed to be in equilibrium.
    The complete system may be finite but for current discussion it is better to ignore boundary conditions.
    The timescales discussed are very large in compare to two dot particles close encounter timescale so the system is a collisional one with gaussian velocity distribution.

    Wave Properties
    In this collisional framework, waves are assumed to propagate non-dispersively with constant speed C which depends on the density and on the ’constant’ g, both are dimensionful scaling factors.
    By scaling reasons C needs to be proportional to .

    Stable Standing Waves
    Consider a small deviation from .
    Slow changes of density across long distances in compare to the average distance between the dot particles are assumed so the discretization of the dot particles can be neglected and smoothed.
    In order to look for localized stable standing waves spherical symmetry is assumed.
    Average density in infinite is .
    The basic formula will treat the infinitesimal energy density change across infinitesimal length:


    Consider the acceleration/force that act upon group of particles in infinitesimal volume.
    If density would be constant everywhere than the average force would be zero.
    The superposition principle can be used together with spherical symmetry assumption as follow:
    • spherical shell with lower than average density contributes opposite sign than higher than average density shell.
    • a(r) is independent on density at r > r similar to a well known fact that gravity inside spherical shell is zero.
    • a(r) for r < r for spherical shell is the same as all excess density is located in the center.
    Considering all that, we get:


    The average of the velocity squared is proportional to . Let the proportionality factor be k.





    Numerical computation of the above formula under the starting conditions of:
    • ρ(0) = + dρ
    • ρ (0) = 0
    gives the following spherical density graph

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	fig1.jpeg 
Views:	36 
Size:	21.9 KB 
ID:	24199

    Within the calculation accuracy, the gaps of average density crossing are equidistant and are independent of dρ.
    We will mark the average density crossing distance as D. D should depend on the density and on g as C does.
    To be more specific, D should depend only on ρ ∞ as long as there are interactions, since if we change time scaling g will change but D shall not.
    This can be obeyed if g is proportional to the average speed of the dot particles v squared as can be seen in the equations and should be expected by similar scaling reasons.
    By the formula, the swaves seems to extend to infinity, however it cannot extend further than the area of density change of order of few dot particles.


    Short-Range Interactions Between Standing Waves
    To a first order approximation we can assume that the shapes of the standing waves do not get distorted by the interaction.
    This approximation may be reasonable if the centers of the two standing waves are not so close to each other relative to the average density crossing distance D.
    1. Two Standing Waves Interactions
    It can be argued that two standing waves will have stable equilibrium positions at either aligned peaks along the line leading from one center to the other or anti aligned or both.
    At each such equilibrium position if exists, we can consider small displacements along the line leading from one center to the other as harmonic oscillator like behavior.
    The next graph describes numerical results of simulating two swaves under the ’rigid body’ approximation where each swave does not change its shape.
    Positive force means attraction and negative force means repulsion.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	fig2.jpeg 
Views:	34 
Size:	28.9 KB 
ID:	24200

    If two standing waves are bound to each other, it is reasonable to claim that they are orbiting each other on a fixed plane in the ’center of mass’ frame similar to classical point particles.
    It can be reasoned using the ’rigid body’ approximation by rotation symmetry around the axis connecting the two centers (z).
    Because of this symmetry, no force can exist in the θ direction (considering cylindrical coordinate system) and any force in ρ direction will be accommodated by it’s inverse to be cancelled leaving only forces along the z axis.
    Assuming two such standing waves are orbiting one another, since each standing wave is constructed from lower and higher densities than average and those deviations accelerate,
    we can assume that propagating waves will radiate in general direction opposite of the accelerations which as assumed laid on a plane.
    The propagating waves will be longitudinal and their net momentum may be zero. Moreover, the direction of the propagation of the waves in this scenario is assumed to be bounded to a plane.
    For those reasons we will discuss bonds of three standing waves which are not restricted to a plane.

    2. Three (or more) Standing Waves Interactions
    Interactions between three bound standing waves are not limited to a plane and it involves more than centric interactions which may be very complicated to analyze,
    however it can be argued that propagating waves with angular momentum can be sustainable.
    This can happen if the standing waves centers trajectories have combined non zero average torsion.
    From now on we will assume that this is the case.


    Electrostatics
    Consider two groups where each group consists of three standing waves.
    Assuming that those two groups are separated by distance much larger than the distance between standing waves within each group,
    we can argue that the dominant interaction between the groups is via the hypothetical angular momentum waves generated by each group.
    The propagating waves do not have spherical symmetry with regard to the group center because of the structure of the group,
    however for general motion of the group if we average the propagation over time we can approximate it to have spherical symmetry.
    The flux of the waves is proportional to the inverse square of the distance.
    The groups can be tagged by the angular momentum sign along the propagation direction.
    This can be related as stated before to the average torsion sign.
    The propagated waves keep the same sign of torsion as that of the originating sources trajectories.
    This can be seen easily if we take as example a helix source of which the waves are propagated as helix with changing radius but with the same orientation.
    A repulsion force is expected to occur between two groups with same sign since there will be high correlation between the waves and the group trajectories and by that each group will act by the momentum transfer of the waves.
    An attraction force is expected between two groups of opposite sign due to low correlation between the waves and the group trajectories which can cause each group to effectively feel unbalanced velocity distributions in the opposite direction of the wave propagation.

    Special Relativity
    In trying to give classical interpretation to the invariance property of the speed of light, Lorentz had an ’artificial’ argument that lengths are contracted in each direction to exactly compensate the speed relative to ’the absolute aether’.
    In the presented model this argument is naturally fulfilled if one assumes that the main forces are mediated by waves,
    it is just that the only way to measure the speed of light is by using the speed of light.
    Since there is no way to measure the absolute velocities distribution of the dot particles within this framework, both assumptions of Special Relativity are obeyed.



    (part 2 and final to be followed)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36
    part 2 and last:

    General Relativity
    The equivalence principle together with the special theory of relativity were the candles that Einstein followed when he forged the general theory of relativity.
    The equivalence principle works well with the presented assumptions as we compare the two following observations:
    • Uniform environment without density variations as seen by some observer which is accelerating.
    • locally ’flat’ environment without density variations which is located in a gravity field
    Both observations look the same, on both of them all the dot particles accelerate the same way and their statistics will have the same behavior.
    However, this presentation do differ from GR by possible negligible effect which is related to the dependence of time on the density change.
    time is proportional to So position with higher density will have faster time flow in contradiction to GR.
    But if we take the reasonable assumption that the vacuum energy density is of planck scale than this effect is negligible in compare to the acceleration affect which causes time to slow down in places of higher densities.
    Take Earth as an example. According to GR time is slowing down on earth surface by about 7e-10 in comparison to remote observer where if we take a density change of
    earth density in addition to the vacuum density in contrast to the vacuum density alone we get fraction of about 1e-93.
    This may cause time to speed up on earth position by about 1e-16 which is more than 6 orders of magnitude smaller than GR prediction.
    It is not an accurate calculation, it is just an order of magnitude estimation but still it shows that the density affect can be neglected in non-extreme environments.


    Proton like - Complex Stable Structures
    1. Preface
    The circulation speed of bounded standing waves around each other is derived from the ’forces’ acting on them around equilibrium positions as assumed in section I E 1.
    Because of that it is reasonable to assume that this speed is much lower than the speed of free waves propagation.
    Consider two groups of bounded standing waves where the distance between the two groups is far enough so that each group will remain distinct and close enough so that the time
    it takes for a propagating wave to reach from one group to the other is very small relative to the characteristic time of a rotation of the standing waves within the group.

    2. Synchronization
    Let us consider two such groups that are forced to remain at the same distance apart from each other.
    The claim is that no matter what are the starting conditions of the two groups,
    after long enough time they will synchronize such that in each group the standing waves will have the same relative positions and velocities.
    Synchronization is an extremely common effect if there are coupled oscillators.

    3. The complete structure
    The number of synchronized groups is not necessarily limited to two and the number of groups that can be synchronized is determined by the
    maximum distance that the time of propagation is still very small relative to the characteristic time of each groups rotation.
    This maximum distance defines the ’proton like’ structure diameter.

    Hydrogen Like
    In order to get ’opposite charge’ envelope to mask the ’proton like’ nucleus we need about the same number of groups with opposite ’charge’ sign outside the ’proton like’ structure.
    However as well known in electrostatics there can be no stable formation like that.
    A way around this is to require the outer groups to have ’partial’ synchronization.
    In order to achieve outer synchronization, which will be explained shortly, we need another assumption,
    it is now required that the outer groups will have repeating movement, which means that the standing waves doing the exact same movement each period cycle.
    Now we can have synchronization between two groups not only under the condition that they are very close to each other but also at distances of integer times the distance a wave propagate during the period time.
    Now we can have partial synchronization where each group is surrounded by other groups which are positioned at the distance of same phase and farther groups are either sits on N times this distance or they can be absorbed in
    a complicated stability condition together with the ’opposite charge’ from the nucleus.
    From this description it is difficult to envision equilibrium state between the core and the shell, however if there is no equilibrium,
    the net angular momentum radiation is not balanced so it is keep being bombarded by outer groups and by that it increases its energy and its angular momentum of the nucleus groups.
    Reaching equilibrium state is a substantially open issue in this model, however it may be possible.

    Multi-Nucleus Particles Like
    Similar to the requirement of the groups in the envelope to have periodicity, demanding it also from the groups in the nucleus allows more than one ’proton like’ to be synchronized in distances related to the period time.

    Interpretation of Mass
    The standing wave distribution described in section I D has zero ’mass’ as seen from infinity.
    However there is a good reason why it can become positive.
    The dot particles are in equilibrium in all space meaning that their distribution of velocities is identical in all directions.
    Assuming there is an interaction between two ’bodies’ than there is a constant flow of dot particles in a limited region in space and in specific directions which violates the equilibrium distribution.
    However this is a constant distribution with higher values in specific directions.
    Since the distribution should be normalized and at equilibrium, it can happen only if there is excess of dot particles at the area of the excess flows.
    The relation of the gravitation forces inside a proton to the non-gravitation forces can be approximated by a simple toy model of a dot particles flowing inside the proton.
    For simplification, the following two assumptions are made:
    • The average speed of the dot particles has the same order of magnitude as C
    • The proton’s mass is caused by excess of dot particles which are going back and forth across the proton diameter D p
    The author’s objective here is just to calculate an order of magnitude of the forces ratio so the estimations are very rough.
    The gravitational force is in order of . In each turn of the dot particles we can estimate the momentum change by .
    The force that is caused by the momentum change is .
    The relation between the two forces is which is about 10e−40 .
    This has a similarity to the relation between gravity and the other forces of nature.

    Bell Inequality Violation
    The presented model is explicitly nonlocal and deterministic and is implicitly causal if we consider all interactions to be mediated by waves.
    In order to see this we need to take as example some complex structure which is constructed from groups of three standing waves.
    Each group radiates waves due to the accelerations of the standing waves.
    Those waves propagate in time, however, the waves creation is based on newtonian forces between the dot particles which are symmetric under time reversal.
    It is clear that there will be also waves which ’propagate’ backwards in time spreading in space, this is a direct consequence of the deterministic nature of the model.
    We can see that the presented model naturally fits the Transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics by Cramer, J. G. of retarded and advanced waves.
    By that, it is possible to achieve all QM predictions.
    The main open issue is the possibility of cancelling the waves outside the 4-vector interaction area between the source and the target.
    This issue is equivalent to the sensitivity of the possibilities of forming complex structures with regard to the initial conditions of the model and requires further exploration.

    Instantaneous Gravity
    According to [Will, C. M. "Propagation speed of gravity and the relativistic time delay"] it seems extremely difficult to measure the speed of gravity and the limits are not set to a finite speed.


    Summary
    The author introduced a set of axioms, followed by many conjectures which leave the discussion open.
    The following merits of classical physics can be relaxed by the suggested conjectures if there will be ways to prove them:
    • Framework for relativity
    • Bell inequality violation of QM
    • Classical analog of QM spin
    • The usage of the same mass parameter in both Newton’s second and third laws
    It is important to stress the idea that based on very specific and simple axioms we can hope to find description of nature.
    In this presentation we can find hints for the strong force, for particles generations and for quarks.
    Dark matter can become trivial effect and even dark energy can be relaxed by the suggested correction to GR.
    The nature of this manuscript is heuristic and imprecise and if it has any hope to be refined it can be done only by a great deal of work from the scientific community.
    However, this may be an impossible barrier, since the mainstream theories are of such a great perfection and precision that investigating the presented ideas can be similar to going back a century

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,788

    Speculations?

    Ohad, do you have any observations or references to support your three axioms?
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isn’t a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    756
    In the third axiom, what are "x", "g", and "r"?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Ohad, do you have any observations or references to support your three axioms?
    Hi John, I guess that this is the key question for every scientific proposition.
    Everything I wrote after the three axioms is an attempt to show reasonable possibility of relation of the axioms to observations.
    It is a bottom up approach which as I wrote is speculative.
    This is an important reason why my ideas are problematic. If they will turn out to be an accurate description of nature, you can see that it is a very long way from the picture of the dot particles to the picture of atoms and light.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    In the third axiom, what are "x", "g", and "r"?
    Hi Jean,
    Xi is a vector of position of dot particle i. so double dots above it is acceleration.
    g is a dimension-full scaling constant. It has units of [distance]^3 over [time]^2
    rij is vector difference between position of particle j to position of particle i.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    756
    Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    Hi Jean,
    Xi is a vector of position of dot particle i. so double dots above it is acceleration.
    g is a dimension-full scaling constant. It has units of [distance]^3 over [time]^2
    rij is vector difference between position of particle j to position of particle i.
    As it appears in the denominator, this last one is a scalar, right? And its value is always positive, right?

    Is g positive or negative?

    As the "dots" have zero extent, they can be arbitrarily close to one another, right?

    What does this mean? "with exact statistical behavior everywhere"

    Likewise, this: "The system is assumed to be in equilibrium"

    How did you arrive at this conclusion? "so the system is a collisional one with gaussian velocity distribution"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    As it appears in the denominator, this last one is a scalar, right? And its value is always positive, right?
    Yes and Yes

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    Is g positive or negative?
    Positive

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    As the "dots" have zero extent, they can be arbitrarily close to one another, right?
    Yes

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    What does this mean? "with exact statistical behavior everywhere"
    Likewise, this: "The system is assumed to be in equilibrium"
    How did you arrive at this conclusion? "so the system is a collisional one with gaussian velocity distribution"
    Regarding the density, I mean mean density distribution everywhere (except for small variations to be discussed later on)
    Regarding the velocity statistical behaviour and gaussian velocities distribution, there are few resources, one of them for example is:
    http://web.pd.astro.it/mapelli/colldyn1.pdf, it says:
    "Collisional systems are systems where interactions between particles are EFFICIENT with respect to the lifetime of the system"
    ...
    "RELAXATION TIME = time necessary for stars in a system to lose completely the memory of their initial velocity"
    ...
    "RELAXATION & THERMALIZATION
    Relaxation and thermalization are almost SYNONYMOUS!
    * Thermalization:
    - is one case of relaxation
    - is defined for gas (because needs definition of T), but can be used also for stellar system (kinetic extension of T)
    - is the process of particles reaching thermal equilibrium through mutual interactions (involves concepts of equipartition and evolution towards maximum entropy state)
    - has velocity distribution function: Maxwellian velocity
    * Relaxation:
    - is defined not only for gas
    - is the process of particles reaching equilibrium through mutual interactions"

    the presentation cites Linden-Bell in 1967:
    thermal distribution maximize entropy if there is efficient dynamical timescale (which causes particles to forget their initial velocities). maximizing entropy means reaching gaussian velocity distribution of velocities.
    Last edited by ohad; 2019-May-19 at 08:35 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    756
    Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    Yes and Yes


    Positive


    Yes


    What does this mean? "with exact statistical behavior everywhere"
    Likewise, this: "The system is assumed to be in equilibrium"
    How did you arrive at this conclusion? "so the system is a collisional one with gaussian velocity distribution"
    Regarding the density, I mean mean density distribution everywhere (except for small variations to be discussed later on)
    Regarding the velocity statistical behaviour and gaussian velocities distribution, there are few resources, one of them for example is:
    http://web.pd.astro.it/mapelli/colldyn1.pdf, it says:
    "Collisional systems are systems where interactions between particles are EFFICIENT with respect to the lifetime of the system"
    ...
    "RELAXATION TIME = time necessary for stars in a system to lose completely the memory of their initial velocity"
    ...
    "RELAXATION & THERMALIZATION
    Relaxation and thermalization are almost SYNONYMOUS!
    * Thermalization:
    - is one case of relaxation
    - is defined for gas (because needs definition of T), but can be used also for stellar system (kinetic extension of T)
    - is the process of particles reaching thermal equilibrium through mutual interactions (involves concepts of equipartition and evolution towards maximum entropy state)
    - has velocity distribution function: Maxwellian velocity
    * Relaxation:
    - is defined not only for gas
    - is the process of particles reaching equilibrium through mutual interactions"

    the presentation cites Linden-Bell in 1967:
    thermal distribution maximize entropy if there is efficient dynamical timescale (which causes particles to forget their initial velocities). maximizing entropy means reaching gaussian velocity distribution of velocities.
    Small point: your references make it very clear that "so the system is a collisional one with gaussian velocity distribution" is one possible outcome of your assumptions, and that initial conditions are an important factor in determining the outcomes. This is a small point because you can easily change it to an assumption rather than a conclusion.

    In "The basic formula will treat the infinitesimal energy density change across infinitesimal length:", what are "E", "r", "/rho", and "a"?

    You write "The average of the velocity squared is proportional to [...]", yet you did not derive or show this. Let me start with "average" - what kind of average? Then there's "velocity", which is (usually) a vector; what does "velocity squared" mean?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    Small point: your references make it very clear that "so the system is a collisional one with gaussian velocity distribution" is one possible outcome of your assumptions, and that initial conditions are an important factor in determining the outcomes. This is a small point because you can easily change it to an assumption rather than a conclusion.
    Thanks for the clarification


    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    In "The basic formula will treat the infinitesimal energy density change across infinitesimal length:", what are "E", "r", "/rho", and "a"?
    E is equivalent to kinetic energy (but without the mass), r is the radius distance from the center of the sphere, 'rho' is the density of the dot particles and a is the acceleration of the dot particles.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    You write "The average of the velocity squared is proportional to [...]", yet you did not derive or show this. Let me start with "average" - what kind of average? Then there's "velocity", which is (usually) a vector; what does "velocity squared" mean?
    I did here a mistake, thanks for the question which clarifies it. I meant speed instead of velocity so no vectors involved, just scalars.
    I am looking for stable density variations so average is both average in time and average of ensemble of many systems which would statistically be in the same macro state.
    Regarding deriving this, it is a very useful and common thing to do in physics, finding arguments just out of pure dimensions. I think that you cannot construct dimensions of velocity squared by using scalars of other combinations than the one stated. Since the average speed squared can be calculated using g and rho, it must depend on them in the stated way. Moreover, I know that it is possible to calculate also the proportionality factor, however I don't know how to do it and I could not find reference to this calculation for this specific system.

    Thanks for the questions and clarifications.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    756
    Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    Thanks for the clarification



    E is equivalent to kinetic energy (but without the mass), r is the radius distance from the center of the sphere, 'rho' is the density of the dot particles and a is the acceleration of the dot particles.
    So far, your ideas seem sorta OK; however, I have no idea what "E is equivalent to kinetic energy (but without the mass)" means. Can you explain, please? In particular, how is this different from speed2 (ignoring any constants)?

    acceleration is usually a vector, yet here it seems it's a scalar; can you explain please?

    I did here a mistake, thanks for the question which clarifies it. I meant speed instead of velocity so no vectors involved, just scalars.
    I am looking for stable density variations so average is both average in time and average of ensemble of many systems which would statistically be in the same macro state.
    I suspect you mean the arithmetic mean (for "average"), but you don't make it clear.

    FWIW, "average" in ordinary English can mean the median, the mode, the arithmetic mean, the geometric mean, ...


    Regarding deriving this, it is a very useful and common thing to do in physics, finding arguments just out of pure dimensions. I think that you cannot construct dimensions of velocity squared by using scalars of other combinations than the one stated. Since the average speed squared can be calculated using g and rho, it must depend on them in the stated way. Moreover, I know that it is possible to calculate also the proportionality factor, however I don't know how to do it and I could not find reference to this calculation for this specific system.

    Thanks for the questions and clarifications.
    (my bold)

    That may be so. However, it's not clear - to me, so far - that you are doing so in a consistent manner. In particular, your explanation of what "E" means suggests to me that your approach is not, in fact, consistent.

    What does this mean: "Consider the acceleration/force that act upon [...]"? In particular, "acceleration" and "force" are, dimensionally, quite distinct. Further, "acceleration" does not - as far as I know - "act upon" anything.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    So far, your ideas seem sorta OK; however, I have no idea what "E is equivalent to kinetic energy (but without the mass)" means. Can you explain, please? In particular, how is this different from speed2 (ignoring any constants)?
    You can look at the picture of the dot particles in two options:
    1. give them arbitrary mass parameter m, so it can be compatible with everyday good old classical physics.
    2. since all the dot particles are identical, all the masses are identical, we do not really need the mass.
    So in order to use the great machinery of classical physics I put the mass and than remove it. E here is actually as you wrote the speed squared, however work which is change of energy is also force times distance and force is equivalent to acceleration after we drop the mass.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    acceleration is usually a vector, yet here it seems it's a scalar; can you explain please?
    Acceleration is actually a vector, I dot product it with dr which is also a vector to turn into a scalar, this is equivalent to work equals force time distance.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    I suspect you mean the arithmetic mean (for "average"), but you don't make it clear.

    FWIW, "average" in ordinary English can mean the median, the mode, the arithmetic mean, the geometric mean, ...
    Thanks for the clarification, I indeed intended it to be arithmetic mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    That may be so. However, it's not clear - to me, so far - that you are doing so in a consistent manner. In particular, your explanation of what "E" means suggests to me that your approach is not, in fact, consistent.

    What does this mean: "Consider the acceleration/force that act upon [...]"? In particular, "acceleration" and "force" are, dimensionally, quite distinct. Further, "acceleration" does not - as far as I know - "act upon" anything.
    I hope that the answer I gave here for the first question answers also this part.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,296
    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    It is a heuristic try to give the simplest possible description of nature based on classical physics while trying to avoid disputing QM nor relativity...
    There are problems with the axioms stating with using the word axiom. An axiom is a mathematical concept, not a physics concept. A physics theory may start with postulates which are reasonable assumptions from which laws of physics can be derived and make predictions that can be tested. For example special relativity
    is based on two postulates:
    1.the laws of physics are invariant (i.e. identical) in all inertial systems (i.e. non-accelerating frames of reference); and
    2.the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.
    These lead to the laws of SR that have been extensively tested, e.g. What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?

    "3-d euclidean space and classical simultaneous time are assumed" is a dubious assumption. The experimental basis of SR and GR tells us that we are not in a 3-D Euclidean space. Length contraction and time dilation do not happen in a 3-D Euclidean space. Gravity in GR needs a curved spacetime. The speed of light being found to be constant in experiments suggests that assuming classical simultaneous time will not reproduce what we measure.

    "There are numerous identical size-less dot particles" is an assumption and we have evidence of "size-less dot particles" that are not identical, e.g. an electron is not a positron, photon or quark.

    "Each dot particle is attracted to all other dot particles by inverse square law" has the problem that there are no inverse square laws between particles seen in nature. Gravity and electromagnetism are inverse square laws only in classical physics and have been known to be wrong for about a century now. The nuclear forces are not inverse square laws. The equation given has a problem that the force between charged particles depends on the charge of the particles (like charges repel, unlike charges repel). It has a constant g and a distance so the force looks always attractive.

    The real problem is that even if the axioms are correct, there is no scientific theory produced from them. A scientific theory makes make testable, falsifiable predictions. A good scientific theory makes prediction that separate it from other theories. For example GR would not be a good theory if it just reproduced Newtonian gravitation (which it does). GR makes many predictions that Newtonian gravitation cannot make and those prediction have been tested and found to be true.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,296
    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    nstantaneous Gravity
    According to [Will, C. M. "Propagation speed of gravity and the relativistic time delay"] it seems extremely difficult to measure the speed of gravity and the limits are not set to a finite speed.
    Propagation Speed of Gravity and the Relativistic Time Delay by Clifford M. Will published in 2003.
    This paper says that measuring the speed of gravity using relativistic time delay comes from second order and higher terms in the post-Newtonian approximation and recent measurements using Jupiter would not detect the speed.. Any limits would be a finite speed.

    A finite speed for gravity has already been established in 2001 as close to 1% of the speed of light from the orbital decay rate of binary pulsars PSR 1913+16. The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment by Clifford M. Will published in 2001.

    The speed of gravity has been measured since 2001 to be about the speed of light with some debate. But recently we have
    The detection of the neutron star inspiral GW170817 in 2017, detected through both gravitational waves and gamma rays, currently provides by far the best limit on the difference between the speed of light and that of gravity. Photons were detected 1.7 seconds after peak gravitational wave emission; assuming a delay of zero to ten seconds, the difference between the speeds of gravitational and electromagnetic waves, vGW − vEM, is constrained to between −3×10−15 and +7×10−16 times the speed of light.[29]

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36
    Hi Reality Check, thanks for your post,

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    There are problems with the axioms stating with using the word axiom. An axiom is a mathematical concept, not a physics concept. A physics theory may start with postulates which are reasonable assumptions from which laws of physics can be derived and make predictions that can be tested. For example special relativity
    Thanks for the clarification regarding the difference between axiom and postulate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    "3-d euclidean space and classical simultaneous time are assumed" is a dubious assumption. The experimental basis of SR and GR tells us that we are not in a 3-D Euclidean space. Length contraction and time dilation do not happen in a 3-D Euclidean space. Gravity in GR needs a curved spacetime. The speed of light being found to be constant in experiments suggests that assuming classical simultaneous time will not reproduce what we measure.
    I am familiar with special and general relativity. I claim that the picture of the classical dot particles reproduces for large range of scales both special and general relativity.
    Please try to see the argument that I gave about special relativity. If all forces at large scales (I mean large in compare to planck length) are mediated by waves traveling at the speed of light, than we cannot measure speed of light to change. because our tools to measure the speed of light are sending waves at the speed of light. So how can you measure the speed of light to not be the speed of light if you measure it only by waves traveling at the speed of light.
    Regarding the curved spacetime of GR: please try to picture the dot particles as our space time. Do not look at the euclidean framework, look at the acceleration of the dot particles, look at the waves propagating through the dot particles. This is curved spacetime. You need to look at the layers above. If we are constructed from waves propagating based on those dot particles, we cannot be aware of the euclidean framework, we will feel the curvature of the medium through which the waves propagate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    "There are numerous identical size-less dot particles" is an assumption and we have evidence of "size-less dot particles" that are not identical, e.g. an electron is not a positron, photon or quark.
    We have no proof that the electron and postiron and photon and quarks are point particles. you can find the maximum allowed size of those particles by the mainstream physics, it is indeed very small, however not zero.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    "Each dot particle is attracted to all other dot particles by inverse square law" has the problem that there are no inverse square laws between particles seen in nature. Gravity and electromagnetism are inverse square laws only in classical physics and have been known to be wrong for about a century now. The nuclear forces are not inverse square laws. The equation given has a problem that the force between charged particles depends on the charge of the particles (like charges repel, unlike charges repel). It has a constant g and a distance so the force looks always attractive.
    My aim here is to show that all the non-inversed-squared laws of nature can be derived from the exact inverse square law I am postulating. If I can show that the equivalence principle and special relativity are derived (to a good enough approximation) by my postulate than I show that it is compatible.
    Regarding the problem that you stated about the always attractive force, I think that you missed the section of electrostatics of my presentation. There I try to show the possibility of both attractive and repulsion force based on my postulates. Also the strong force is treated in the proton section to some extent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The real problem is that even if the axioms are correct, there is no scientific theory produced from them. A scientific theory makes make testable, falsifiable predictions. A good scientific theory makes prediction that separate it from other theories. For example GR would not be a good theory if it just reproduced Newtonian gravitation (which it does). GR makes many predictions that Newtonian gravitation cannot make and those prediction have been tested and found to be true.
    If the axioms are correct you could produce a scientific theory due to the simple fact that it is calculatable. You can do simulations of the dot particles, and from the simulations you can do both predictions and calculations. You can simulate the standing waves, you can simulate the interactions between the standing waves, you can test each statement that I made with simulations.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    756
    Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    You can look at the picture of the dot particles in two options:
    1. give them arbitrary mass parameter m, so it can be compatible with everyday good old classical physics.
    2. since all the dot particles are identical, all the masses are identical, we do not really need the mass.
    So in order to use the great machinery of classical physics I put the mass and than remove it. E here is actually as you wrote the speed squared, however work which is change of energy is also force times distance and force is equivalent to acceleration after we drop the mass.
    Well, it's your ATM idea, so you may choose to present it any way you like.

    However, this approach certainly makes it much harder for others to follow what you are doing, and very likely hides a considerable number of inconsistencies.

    Acceleration is actually a vector, I dot product it with dr which is also a vector to turn into a scalar, this is equivalent to work equals force time distance.
    And yet you use at least two different symbols for acceleration, and possibly the same symbol for two different things ("r").


    Thanks for the clarification, I indeed intended it to be arithmetic mean.


    I hope that the answer I gave here for the first question answers also this part.
    Unfortunately, no this does not answer my question. However, I'll move on ...

    There's some weird stuff just a bit further down, for example:

    "a(r) is independent on density at r > r [...]"
    "a(r) for r < r for spherical shell [...]"
    "ρ(0) = + dρ" and "ρ (0) = 0"

    It seems to me that you have a lot of "tidying up" to do, in order to make your presentation readable (and once you do that, likely a lot more to make it consistent).

    Moving on ...

    Have you shown that you can derive Maxwell's equations from your postulates and assumptions? If not, why not? If so, can you present that derivation?

    What is a hydrogen atom (proton and electron), in this ATM idea of yours?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    <snip>
    The real problem is that even if the axioms are correct, there is no scientific theory produced from them. A scientific theory makes make testable, falsifiable predictions. A good scientific theory makes prediction that separate it from other theories. For example GR would not be a good theory if it just reproduced Newtonian gravitation (which it does). GR makes many predictions that Newtonian gravitation cannot make and those prediction have been tested and found to be true.
    If the axioms are correct you could produce a scientific theory due to the simple fact that it is calculatable. You can do simulations of the dot particles, and from the simulations you can do both predictions and calculations. You can simulate the standing waves, you can simulate the interactions between the standing waves, you can test each statement that I made with simulations.
    I think you may have misunderstood RC's point ("A scientific theory makes make testable, falsifiable predictions").

    The first (well, an early) burden for your ATM idea is to show that you can reproduce (or derive) all relevant contemporary physics from your ATM idea.

    This includes, at the appropriate limits, classical physics, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Quantum Field Theory. Which includes thousands of well-established, robust experimental and observational results.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Propagation Speed of Gravity and the Relativistic Time Delay by Clifford M. Will published in 2003.
    This paper says that measuring the speed of gravity using relativistic time delay comes from second order and higher terms in the post-Newtonian approximation and recent measurements using Jupiter would not detect the speed.. Any limits would be a finite speed.

    A finite speed for gravity has already been established in 2001 as close to 1% of the speed of light from the orbital decay rate of binary pulsars PSR 1913+16. The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment by Clifford M. Will published in 2001.

    The speed of gravity has been measured since 2001 to be about the speed of light with some debate. But recently we have
    Thanks for the more accurate information.
    The problem is that in mainstream physics speed of gravity waves and speed of gravity are actually the same.
    In this presentation, there is a difference as follows:
    Gravity waves can be ripples (shock waves) in the dot particles picture. They will be created by large impacts or rapid movements of massive objects similar to mainstream physics. They will propagate at the speed of light.
    What is different is the force of gravity in this presentation which is instantaneous. The most apparent way to measure it is impossible as the source claims.
    You can also see the next link (by mainstream respectable physicist):http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~cmw/SpeedofGravity.html. It is old but it claim that the best way to measure the speed of gravity is by measuring the speed of gravity waves.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    I think you may have misunderstood RC's point ("A scientific theory makes make testable, falsifiable predictions").

    The first (well, an early) burden for your ATM idea is to show that you can reproduce (or derive) all relevant contemporary physics from your ATM idea.

    This includes, at the appropriate limits, classical physics, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Quantum Field Theory. Which includes thousands of well-established, robust experimental and observational results.
    If I understand your claim, than you are correct that due to the high speculative nature of my proposal, it seems impossible to follow that requirement.
    However I do think that although it may be extremely difficult, it may be possible.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    Well, it's your ATM idea, so you may choose to present it any way you like.

    However, this approach certainly makes it much harder for others to follow what you are doing, and very likely hides a considerable number of inconsistencies.
    Thanks for this remark, I will prepare a different presentation for this section with mass.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    And yet you use at least two different symbols for acceleration, and possibly the same symbol for two different things ("r").
    regarding the issue with r, I now saw that I didn't copy correctly the marks with ' , it should be correct at the link of the original presentation, however I cannot fix it here because editing the initial post is not allowed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    There's some weird stuff just a bit further down, for example:

    "a(r) is independent on density at r > r [...]"
    "a(r) for r < r for spherical shell [...]"
    "ρ(0) = + dρ" and "ρ (0) = 0"

    It seems to me that you have a lot of "tidying up" to do, in order to make your presentation readable (and once you do that, likely a lot more to make it consistent).
    Here is the same issue with the missing '.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    Have you shown that you can derive Maxwell's equations from your postulates and assumptions? If not, why not? If so, can you present that derivation?
    This is a very good question. I did not show derivation of Maxwell's equations. I think it is possible to derive it based on the picture of electrostatics that I made, I will try to work on it. If I will see that it takes too much time I will ask to freeze this post until it is ready.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    What is a hydrogen atom (proton and electron), in this ATM idea of yours?
    To my opinion, the hydrogen atom picture is both the most heuristic and imprecise and the most important missing part of the picture. I think that the shell of the groups of the standing waves will have some dynamics around the core but I am really not sure how to picture it. I know that finding stable formations in this picture that can remind somehow the hydrogen atom is extremely difficult. But to answer your question in the most basic level, the hydrogen is completely structured out of groups of three standing waves, half of them at the core with specific torsion sign and half of them at the envelop with opposite torsion sign.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,296
    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    I claim that the picture of the classical dot particles reproduces for large range of scales both special and general relativity. ...
    But that is all you have, ohad, a claim and what-if stories. You need to take what you picture and derive the postulates of SR and GR. Then do the same for your QM clams, e.g. derive the Schrödinger equation.

    An aside: Physics does not have axioms or proofs (these are mathematics).

    You misunderstand. We have never detected any of your "identical dot particles". An electron is not a positron because it has a different charge. An electron is not a photon because it has a different spin, mass and charge. Ditto for the different quarks which are not even identical to each other! Electrons, etc. being point particles is a separate matter. Measuring upper limits to their sizes does not make give them sizes. The evidence that they are point particles is that QM works.

    If the axioms are correct you as the author of this ATM idea could produce a scientific theory. It is up to you as the supporter of your ATM idea to support it. This post suggests that you have not started doing this vital step in turning an idea into an ATM idea. An ATM thread needs to be about an at least partially compete ATM idea and is closed after 30 days. What I have read is an idea and a claim that it can be linked to SR, GR and QM. Maybe you should ask for the thread to be suspended until you come back with the postulates of SR or GR and maybe equations of QM?
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-May-21 at 10:28 PM.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,296
    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    The problem is that in mainstream physics speed of gravity waves and speed of gravity are actually the same.
    That is not a problem. That is a supported by evidence, prediction from GR. GR predicts that gravitational waves will have the speed of light. We detect gravitational waves with the speed of light within measurement errors.
    You seem to have not read my information. We already knew in 2001 that the speed of gravitation was about 1% that of c.
    The speed of gravitational waves has been most accurately measured by comparing the arrival of gravitational waves and light from a neutron star merger and is c.
    The detection of the neutron star inspiral GW170817 in 2017, detected through both gravitational waves and gamma rays, currently provides by far the best limit on the difference between the speed of light and that of gravity. Photons were detected 1.7 seconds after peak gravitational wave emission; assuming a delay of zero to ten seconds, the difference between the speeds of gravitational and electromagnetic waves, vGW − vEM, is constrained to between −3×10−15 and +7×10−16 times the speed of light.[29]
    A tiny point: gravity waves are not gravitational waves.

    A formal question: If the propagation of gravitation is instantaneous in your ATM idea than why is the speed of gravitational waves measured to be c?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,296
    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    The most apparent way to measure it is impossible as the source claims. ...
    The paper stated that analysis of the September 8, 2002 passage of Jupiter almost in front of a quasar will not give a measurement of the sped of gravity.
    This is what the web page Has the Speed of Gravity Been Measured? you link to also states. As you write "It is old but it claim that the best way to measure the speed of gravity is by measuring the speed of gravity waves." which has been done. Indirectly in 2001 and then directly (as on that page "By comparing the arrival of a gravitational-wave signal with that of an electromagnetic signal from an astrophysical source") in 2018.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,211
    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    <snip>

    regarding the issue with r, I now saw that I didn't copy correctly the marks with ' , it should be correct at the link of the original presentation, however I cannot fix it here because editing the initial post is not allowed.
    ohad

    Please edit your initial post to correct any typos there are.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,296
    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    Bell Inequality Violation
    The presented model is explicitly nonlocal and deterministic and is implicitly causal if we consider all interactions to be mediated by waves.
    You may need to review Bell's theorem
    No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.
    As far as I can see your idea is local. You seem to have waves travelling at c that by definition interact locally (local realism). The theorem is not about determinism or causality.
    You are also are missing hidden variables. And "local hidden variables" are part of QM, not classical physics.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,296
    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    Interpretation of Mass
    The standing wave distribution described in section I D has zero ’mass’ as seen from infinity.
    However there is a good reason why it can become positive. ...
    This is not followed by a good reason. You talk about velocities and flows with an unsupported claim about the mass of a proton. You try to develop a force ratio for forces inside a proton but state the gravitational force between protons with mass mp. Mass mp is what you should be deriving.

    This is the relative strengths between gravitation and the other forces. The post's "10e−40" value cannot be compared to any of these relative strengths because an unknown force between hypothetical "dot particles" is not in that list. The "10e−40" value is not similar to the values. It is out by 15 orders of magnitude for gravitation/weak force, 2 orders of magnitude for gravitation/strong force and 4 orders of magnitude for gravitation/electromagnetism.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    That is not a problem. That is a supported by evidence, prediction from GR.
    By problem, I meant my problem of supporting my ATM idea. Sorry if it could be interpreted otherwise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    GR predicts that gravitational waves will have the speed of light. We detect gravitational waves with the speed of light within measurement errors.
    You seem to have not read my information. We already knew in 2001 that the speed of gravitation was about 1% that of c.
    The speed of gravitational waves has been most accurately measured by comparing the arrival of gravitational waves and light from a neutron star merger and is c.
    The information from 2001, the orbital decay rate of binary pulsars is caused by energy propagated by gravitation waves. This mechanism of energy propagated by ripples in space time can be supported at the dot particles picture as well. It is a measurement of gravitation waves which is the same as the speed of the gravitation force in mainstream physics but differs from the instantaneous force in current presentation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    A tiny point: gravity waves are not gravitational waves.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    A formal question: If the propagation of gravitation is instantaneous in your ATM idea than why is the speed of gravitational waves measured to be c?
    The mainstream phenomenon of gravitation waves are understood as ripples in space time. I think it can easily be visioned in the current presentation as longitudinal waves with large wavelengths. I don't know how to calculate the speed of longitudinal waves nor transverse waves in my picture but it is possible that they are the same.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    But that is all you have, ohad, a claim and what-if stories. You need to take what you picture and derive the postulates of SR and GR.
    I think that based on the dot particles picture, and based on my speculative electrostatic picture I did give solid logic argument to support the postulates of SR and of the equivalence principle.
    This is something that I really want to discuss and to be criticized about. If my reason is not valid please let me know what is wrong with it. If I am not mistaken, until now you did not relate to those claims at all, just the general quoted remark and one similar to it before.
    I will try to present my arguments about SR in more elaborate way here:
    I am starting with the assumption that all electromagnetic forces are mediated by waves that propagate at the speed of light.
    I claim that every speed that you will measure will be relative to the speed of light in that picture. If you have for example slow speed of atoms bouncing off each other, it is relative to the speed of light, it cannot be otherwise. The mathematical argument is - dimension analysis. You cannot create dimension of speed without using the speed of light. even if you think that you are using some other speed, it is just an intermediate 'messenger' from the speed of light.
    Let's continue our discussion with michelson-morley experiment. When they measured the speed of light in two perpendicular directions and if you are looking from outside our universe at the hypothetical picture of the dot particles, you would see different speeds in different directions. However, if you are withing our universe, constructed from atoms which interacts via forces that are derived from the electromagnetic force which act by waves propagating at the speed of light, you can only measure the speed of light to be invariant. when the external picture (from outside the universe) sees lower velocity, the atoms also see lower velocity and vice versa. so the relative velocity is invariant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Then do the same for your QM clams, e.g. derive the Schrödinger equation.
    Unfortunately I cannot derive Schrödinger equation since I cannot derive planck constant, It may be possible only if the hydrogen atom picture will be complete.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    An aside: Physics does not have axioms or proofs (these are mathematics).
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    You misunderstand. We have never detected any of your "identical dot particles". An electron is not a positron because it has a different charge. An electron is not a photon because it has a different spin, mass and charge. Ditto for the different quarks which are not even identical to each other! Electrons, etc. being point particles is a separate matter. Measuring upper limits to their sizes does not make give them sizes. The evidence that they are point particles is that QM works.
    In this presentation all those particles are not point particles, so the different qualities they have can be supported. The evidence that mainstream physics claim only maximum size and not declare zero size prove that they are not necessary dot particle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    If the axioms are correct you as the author of this ATM idea could produce a scientific theory. It is up to you as the supporter of your ATM idea to support it. This post suggests that you have not started doing this vital step in turning an idea into an ATM idea. An ATM thread needs to be about an at least partially compete ATM idea and is closed after 30 days. What I have read is an idea and a claim that it can be linked to SR, GR and QM. Maybe you should ask for the thread to be suspended until you come back with the postulates of SR or GR and maybe equations of QM?
    I claim (and I am willing to defend my claims) that SR, equivalence principle and bell inequality violations are reasonable consequence of my postulates and that this presentation is incapable of fine tuning (epicycles).
    Don't you think it worth the stage as ATM discussion? Do you know of any candidate theory in the world to disallow any fine-tuning?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,296
    Quote Originally Posted by ohad View Post
    By problem, I meant my problem of supporting my ATM idea. Sorry if it could be interpreted otherwise. ...
    Then you need to come up with a actual prediction of the speed of gravitational waves using your ATM idea. Not a invalid guess of "instantaneous force" which makes your ATM idea currently wrong when as you know the speed of gravitation has been measured to be very close to the speed of light.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    You may need to review Bell's theorem

    As far as I can see your idea is local. You seem to have waves travelling at c that by definition interact locally (local realism). The theorem is not about determinism or causality.
    You are also are missing hidden variables. And "local hidden variables" are part of QM, not classical physics.
    The answer to your remark is simple from one side and very non-intuitive from the other side.
    In order to solve our debate about locality I don't think that reviewing again Bell's theorem will help.
    On the other hand the next two points will help:
    1. The Transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics by Cramer - it is part of the mainstream physics. It is considered as equivalent to other interpretations of QM. It claims that every interaction is mediated by retarded wave (the good old QM wave) and advanced wave ( a back in time wave which propagates from the target to the source).
    2. In my presentation if we accept the assumption of (retarded) transverse waves which carry the electromagnetic force, we must accept also the advanced waves propagated opposite in time, from the target to the source exactly like Cramer's suggestion. The reason is mathematical: the waves are caused solely by newtonian forces which are the same when you play the 'video' backwards in time. so for every wave which is created which propagate in time, there is a wave created which go backwards in time.

Posting Permissions

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