Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Dufourny: on 1/24/10 at 11:22am UTC, wrote Hi dear Don, Thank you, I am well,it could be better but that goes hihihi....

Don Limuti: on 1/18/10 at 22:08pm UTC, wrote Argen, I am hoping (not to be confused with hopping) that some bright...

Arjen Dijksman: on 1/18/10 at 20:31pm UTC, wrote Hi Don, You did a very good job in your first (longer) explanation. It...

Don Limuti: on 1/18/10 at 8:12am UTC, wrote Hi Steve, I am fine, and I hope you are too. As you noticed my spelling...

Steve Dufourny: on 1/17/10 at 14:37pm UTC, wrote Hi all , More a sphere turns, less is its mass .m v .simply Regards ...

Don Limuti: on 1/12/10 at 3:18am UTC, wrote Arjin, I did not do a very good job let me try again. I do not show how a...

Don Limuti: on 1/11/10 at 11:22am UTC, wrote Argen good to hear back from you. Your recommendation of the Australian...

Anonymous: on 1/10/10 at 21:45pm UTC, wrote Hello Don, Well I'm returning a bit late to your forum, but better late...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve, Please try to understand that infinite surface am not a..." in Watching the Observers

Steve Agnew: "Supposing the universe is infinite is simply another way of supposing the..." in Watching the Observers

kurt stocklmeir: "spring constant of time and space is not linear - this influences a lot of..." in Alternative Models of...

Kevin Adams: "Very interesting theme! Thanks a lot for this information. I just going to..." in Multiversal Journeys —...

Colin Richardson: ""According to quantum mechanics, a vacuum isn't empty at all. It's actually..." in Manipulating the Quantum...

Lorraine Ford: "Dear Rajiv, I have already addressed your 3 points, but I will put it to..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Peter Morgan: "An e-mail sent to me by Springer Nature today tells me that because I am at..." in Manipulating the Quantum...

munized ward: "Variety exists inside all populaces of life forms. This happens somewhat in..." in Natural Selection in...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.


FQXi FORUM
June 24, 2017

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: Gravity From the Ground Up by Don Limuti [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Don Limuti wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 17:03 GMT
Essay Abstract

The fundamentals of physics are investigated via a thought experiment that starts with an "educated guess" about how particles move. This motion is then used in the wave equation developed by Nobel laureate Louis deBroglie. This theory has some predictions for very high-energy particles and photons and shows what is ultimately possible in particle physics. It also: 1. Puts inertia/gravity as a fundamental part of the quantum world. 2. Gives physical meaning to the Planck Units and shows the ultimate quantum to be the Planck Mass. 3. Updates Maxwell's equations. 4. Takes gravity from the quantum particle world to the world of distributed masses. I am calling this as yet untested theory "Digital Wave Theory" or "λ-Hop Theory". It may even prove to have some merit, keep an open mind and I hope you enjoy the ride.

Author Bio

Don Limuti is the president of Communication Panels Co. and creator of www.zenophysics.com He obtained a BSEE degree from The City College of New York and has presented several technical papers at IEEE events. He has been awarded three patents and has several in process. His essay entry in the first essay contest "Making Time with Pretty Girls and Hot Stoves" is on the FQXi.org web site.

Download Essay PDF File




J.C.N. Smith wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 19:32 GMT
Mr. Limuti,

Thank you for an interesting essay! Well written, and very thought provoking.

A couple of questions: you didn't mention Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in your essay; have you thought about how that might relate to your theory? And can you suggest any predictions which your theory might allow which could be testable with technology currently available or likely to be available in the foreseeable future?

report post as inappropriate


Author Don Limuti wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 23:02 GMT
To J.C.N. Smith,

Thanks for two very to the point questions.

1. The uncertainty principle does not apply to Lambda-Hopping particles in theory because they are never seen "in motion". In practice if your measuring device smears the measurement to give you a velocity then you have uncertainty. So in theory this is a deterministic theory because position and velocity are never seen together in a particle. Ordinary matter does have position and velocity together and the concept of uncertainty could apply.

2. Two ways of checking the theory come to mind:

a. Measure the speed of light and show it is slower for higher frequencies.

To get enough precision to do this is probably not possible.

b. Get a massive non charged particle like a Buckyball C60 and attempt to

show they physically hop at longer and longer distances as they slow

down. Put them in something like an evacuated hour glass and watch them

as they fall. This might be possible.

My first attempt at this theory was not very good, but I got some encouragement from a kind professor (he took a prize in the nature of time contest) who liked the concept of a minimum velocity for matter. My second attempt is on the website www.zenophysics.com, you may find this site interesting in spite of the fact that much of it is obsolete having been updated by this essay.

Don L.




Author Don Limuti wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 05:47 GMT
To J.C.N. Smith,

Let me add a bit to the uncertainty concept. I just read what I sent you and it was not very useful ...sorry.

I will use a "Buckyball" for my particle. Heisenberg would say that the position and momentum of a Buckyball cannot both be known to an arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely position is known, the less precisely momentum can be known.

When a Buckyball is conceived of as a Lambda-Hopping particle, it appears at an exact position P1 and time T1 and reappears at another exact position P2 and time T2. The Buckyball does not have velocity as a property. The velocity (and momentum mv) that the Buckyball has is always a calculation where: V = (P2-P1)/(T2-T1). Note that with this model the velocity is not known instantaneously, you have to wait till the hop completes, but the positions and times are known exactly and the velocity is calculated exactly, therefore there is no uncertainty.

With Lambda-Hopping particles it is just part of how things work that position and velocity are never "known" at the same time. In "standard physics" we take it for granted that position and velocity should be able to be known together and accurately. And since this is not the case we need to patch in the uncertainty principle.

And that is why I say that Lambda-Hop theory is deterministic.

Don L.




J.C.N. Smith wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 16:35 GMT
Thanks for the clarification. Your original reply carried the message well enough, too. An interesting concept, for sure! I'd love to know how Mr. Heisenberg would respond to your clever circumvention of his principle! I'll look forward to seeing further developments of your ideas.

jcns

report post as inappropriate


Author Don Limuti wrote on Sep. 22, 2009 @ 22:31 GMT
To J.C.N. Smith

It may be that Heisenberg may not object to this "circumvention".

The uncertainty equation (deltaX)(deltaP)>=h/2 translates to the fact that you cannot get a better resolution on the position of a mass than its wavelength divided by 2. This is from the deBroglie equation wavelength X=h/P

The theory developed here says the same thing. Make a measurement on a particle and get a number for its position. This theory considers this number exact. Now make the measurement repeatedly and the numbers will scatter about the wavelength with the average being the wavelength divided by 2. This is because the particle is always hopping back and forth (as a minimum velocity) about its wavelength. If you could make your measurements synchronous with the hopping then you could get an exact repetitive position.

The question is, can this satisfy Einstein?

Don L.




Tejinder Singh wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 09:29 GMT
Dear Don,

It is very interesting for me to see that you emphasize the significance of Planck mass. Personally I feel its importance is highly under-rated, while great importance is given to Planck energy. Should both Planck mass and Planck energy not be treated at par, as a result of Einstein's mass nergy equivalence? There is somehow a tendency to beleve that since Planck energy is

a very large (as yet) inaccessible energy new physics is likely to arise there, but Planck mass being so close to masses we are routinely familiar with, nothing new can happen there. I find such an attitude self-contradictory.

I had a couple of questions to you. In your work, can you devise a dynamical equation of motion for particles with mmass close to Planck mass? Secondly, would you happen to know experimentalists who are interested in probing mesoscopic quantum mechanics?

Thanks,

Tejinder

report post as inappropriate


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 18:46 GMT
Dear Don Limuti,

The 'self gravity' explained in your article is similar to the space flux, that is the gravity on transfer of energy-mass in the cyclic action by wave propagator, explained in the Coherent-cyclic model of universe.

In this model, gravity is described as the primary force among all fundamental forces of Nature, whereas the other three forces are the hybrids of different manifestations of the gravity only. As per this model, there is no vacuum even in quantum level and the gluons are considered as the starting point in similarities with your 'Gravity from the Ground Up' approach for unification, in that the gauge bosons are expressed as space flux that carries gravity on elastic scattering.

The phenomenon of hopping may be explained in a Coherent-cyclic model of universe as the transfer energy-mass by cyclic action of the propagator as the wave propagates through matrix in a path integral. As the angular velocity in the cyclic processes of the elements in the matrix varies, the wave length of the wave propagation varies and the wave function is not applicable for this model. This implies that the mean angular velocity in a path integral determines the speed of propagation and this may provide some solution to the paradox on speed of light for your experimental expectations, as there is no free space in this model.

In a Coherent-cyclic model, as all cluster-matters are in coherent cyclic motion, the rest mass of matters is not explainable and the acceleration is only a rate of change of position without transfer of energy-mass.

I have to say thank you, as this article provides lot of clues to integrate the physics of Lambda-CDM model of cosmology with the physics of Coherent-cyclic model of universe.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate


Author Don Limuti wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 06:55 GMT
Tejinder,

Thank you for the information. Also, I like the term m-mass, you have given a name to a area that physicists have looked at and noted as peculiar, but have not pursued. This is a good area for a FQxi grant!



The reason I like the term m-mass is because it could stand for "missing" mass. This is missing mass on a QM level. And with a certain amount of "that is...

view entire post





Anonymous wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 08:11 GMT
Dear Jayakar Johnson Joseph,

I am glad you found my essay useful. Thanks for the feedback.

I did read your essay and realize that your post was trying to bring some of the concepts down to where I could understand them. Thanks.

My wish is that your work can Make the Standard Model of Physics stand as an elegant structure.

Best wishes,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate


Narendra nath wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 12:53 GMT
To me the text here merely shows what happens when one freezes one parameter and look at the other related one, only as really acting. If there are two conjugate parameters like energy and time, freezing energy will force time to show the effects of change in energy in terms of time only and vice versa.It is just forcing physical parameters in play to reduce and then see what is happening.

However, what fascinates me as unique here is that there can be change in the speed of light signal if it comes from a very high frequency region greater than the highest energy Gamma rays available thus far. Such energetic particles may have existed in and near the Big bang. But how does the particle speed gets limited to the value c/underoot 2 in your treatment?

Another intersting point to look for is that no funadamental particle may have a mass greater than 21.77 microgramme, certainly a large mass to have for a fundamental particle. Implications of this approach for the future of Physics remains a bit obscure.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 00:01 GMT
Narendra,

Thank you for the interest in my essay. I have read your essay and the many posts to it. It is obvious that you are part of what holds this forum together and makes it a pleasure to participate in.

1. Yes I have "frozen" the parameter of instantaneous velocity. But my intention was not to force physical parameters. I really think there is no such thing as instantaneous velocity for quantum mechanical particles. Well, if there is no instantaneous velocity how can they move? And the answer is by "hopping". The particle comes in and out of existence in a predictable way that makes it have no velocity when it appears. The existence of velocity and therefore energy is a calculation based upon successive measurements of the particle v = (x2-x1)/(t2-t1).

2. Why would anyone want to make such a crazy theory? The reason why I did it was to get around Zeno's paradox. I believe Zeno's arguments are correct and his conclusion that Achilles' arrow at any instant cannot be moving is also correct. The arrow moves essentially by hopping (it is never seen in motion), That is the QM particles that comprise the arrow are all hopping in some statistical manner. But electrons and buckyballs hop in a linear predictable manner.

Most scientists and mathematicians believe that Zeno's paradox is explained via the methods of calculus. This puts me and a handful of others in a minority position, so I usually try to hide my philosophical connection to Zeno.

3. c/2^0.5 came from substituting the Planck mass (ch/G)^1/2) into the equation for velocity Vo4 - c2Vo2 + c2m4G2/(4h2) = 0 . And it is a bunch of math steps which I omitted as you noted :)

4. Your last paragraph indicated how strange it is to have the Planck mass be a quantum particle. I feel the same way. I looked at the graph and was amazed by how c fell off and how energy and mass became the same value at the Planck mass.

My best guess is that low mass particles (electrons) are purely QM and as particles get more massive they become mixed with classical matter more and more until there is no more QM particles past the Planck mass and all masses larger than the Planck mass are ordinary "statistical" matter.

5. This essay is basically a "see what I found" and a call for help.

Thanks for your interest,

Don L.

report post as inappropriate


NN wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 03:04 GMT
Dear Don,

i really appreciate your frank defence of the approach adopted. I also now feel that the truth lies somewhere in the harmony of the concepts behind quantum mechanics in relation to the classical. The mesamorphic region postulated for study bt Tejinder in his essay on this forum may help decipher the mystery. it may also fufil the hope of Einstein that one day an alternate theory will emerge to replace the Quantum one. Yes, probabilities are governing the grosser aspects of physical reality but certainlt there ia an order/ logic behind all the physical ceration. I feel the day we are able to resolve the nature of dark matterenergy vis a vis visible matter mystery, we may sort out many such issues. After the primordial matter born at the Big Bang, was and shoud be the common source for both these types.

Let us all love Physics as well as all of ourselves and things will become easy to solve with humility and ego-free attitudes.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 17:46 GMT
Hi dear Don Limuti ,

I liked reading your essay .Interesting in its whole .

I was curious about the origin of mass ,which is for me the rotating quantum spheres.

The inetia ,the moment ,the fields ,the forces ,the energy ,.....and the rotating spheres are linked of course.It's difficult to know the correct number and this reality .

Congratulations and good luck

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Don Limuti wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 07:30 GMT
Hi Steve,

I enjoy all your posts, particularly when I have to figure out the French!

Your post here is particularly good English. I hope my response is as good.

1. I did not find much on the web about rotating quantum spheres. However, I can imagine Feynman's path integral where a QM particle moves between two positions along all possible paths as a sphere.

Did I get close to what you had in mind? Can you provide any references to rotating quantum spheres?

2. In the theory I have been promoting where particles hop from position to position (Lambda-Hop), I have stayed in a single dimension. In 3D these particles would look like spheres that would be rotating. I have not given it much thought.

3. It is interesting to note that Feynman's path integral concept is similar to Lambda-Hop theory. Logically a particle that moves along all possible paths moves along no path. Moving along no path corresponds to hopping.

4. In Lambda-Hop theory mass does not have an independent origin. Mass, space and time are connected via deBroglies equation and are intimately entangled.

Let me know if my English and ideas make any sense to you.

Don L.




Steve D wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 08:52 GMT
Hi Don Limuti ,

Thanks .

You know it's easier for me to read english than writing .

I write literally .I try to make simple with my words .

About rotating spheres ,I must write articles ,publications .There in Belgium I restabilize my economic situation and after I will publish some articles correlated with my works about the spherisation theory ,a gut of Rot spheres.

The equations of debroglie ,Maxwell ,dirac ...are relevant indeed .

I try to orientate the model with a good hilbert space and the good number of spheres .It's difficult to find the good number but I will arrive one day I hope .

You say

2. In the theory I have been promoting where particles hop from position to position (Lambda-Hop), I have stayed in a single dimension. In 3D these particles would look like spheres that would be rotating. I have not given it much thought.

Very relevant .

3. It is interesting to note that Feynman's path integral concept is similar to Lambda-Hop theory. Logically a particle that moves along all possible paths moves along no path. Moving along no path corresponds to hopping.

I am going to learn more about it .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Arjen Dijksman wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 09:15 GMT
Hello Don,

Thank you for the clear outline of your model, a very creative model. I appreciated the mathematical underpinning of your model, which makes it more precise. Trying to explain the wave-like appearing, disappearing and re-appearing of the particles must always start with an "educated guess" and your lambda-hop model is a possible one, which gives some insights that other approaches don't give. That's always valuable.

Compliments for your website, following Smolin's five major problems scheme. Tackling all five is brave. I've also been inspired by Smolin to tackle the second problem at the Principles of Quantum Mechanics page at Wikiversity. You may be interested by the appearing/disappearing animation of the particle in a box.

Regards,

Arjen

report post as inappropriate


Tejinder Singh wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 13:14 GMT
Dear Don,

I would like to draw your attention to an article on the FQXi forum at

http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/103

which seems quite relevant to the discussion we have been having, and where I have left a post.

report post as inappropriate


Author Don Limuti wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 01:12 GMT
Hello Arjen,

Your "Principles of Quantum Mechanics" and the display of the vectors in the box is very informative. It made me think that my essay is not that "far out". The animation could have been of lambda-hopping particles instead of "vectors".

As I read through the basic principles of QM I found the sentence that I think is at the heart of the trouble with physics "A spinning nail has observational properties attached to it (position, translational and angular velocity,...), the same for the vector representing it." Here are some of my thoughts:

1. The key issue is observational properties. This was defined as:

experimental; relying on observation or experiment.

2. As an observational property "position" is just fine. We can make a

measurement and get positions on lambda-hoppers.

3. The other observables of velocity (translational and rotational) along with momentum and energy can never be observed with lambda-hoppers, it can only be calculated from measurements made in the past. And thus memory is important in physics, another area that deserves some attention. Is the memory in the universe as a whole or in something the observer constructs?

4. The Hamiltonian operator may work OK with vectors, but it is going to have trouble with lambda-hoppers because of their discontinuous nature. The Hamiltonian operator will produce infinities because of this. I think this is one of the problems with quantum field theory?

Appreciate the information and help,

Don L.




Anonymous wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 02:51 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

I did investigate the link and your post. I was a little disappointed in that right when the article got interesting it ended. It did however indicate that we are not alone in our suspicions about a transition region from QM to classical.

Using superposition seems like the hard way to go in my opinion. As you know I suspect that quantum mechanics is very mechanical. So, here is a mechanical idea for checking the "quantumness" of particles. I am going to do this with just words, so I wish myself luck.

1. Fire a single file stream of uniformly spaced particles at a detector screen. A single dot will appear on the screen.

2. Fire an identical stream of particles at the screen and have it cross the first stream at a slight angle. This stream by itself would also produce a dot in a different position than the first stream. (It would be neat if the first stream could double back on itself so that a second stream would not be necessary.)

3. Operate both streams simultaneously. At the place that they cross there will be the expected collisions which will produce a smooth distribution of particles at the screen. If the particles are QM in nature there will be a slight difference in the pattern due to interference.

4. I think of one stream as creating a "grid". The second stream interacts with this grid. If a ratio of the "interference pattern" to the "classical pattern" can be made it would give a measure of just how good a QM particle we have.

And as usual the devil is in the details.

Thanks for the information,

Don L.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 16:46 GMT
Dear Don ,

I don't find many things about the Lambda Hop Theory .Like the lambda calculus .If you must resume this theory ,how would you resume it ?

I d like suggest one thing ,wich is ,it seems to me ,interesting.

I see in your discussions what you speak about a state ,entangled where mass ,space and time are connected with De broglies .I can agree if we accept our walls of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Steve D. wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 16:54 GMT
Sorry if my english is too literal still ,I haven't reread it ,furthermore twice time I sign ,oh my god ,Steve be more professional hihihi really sorry ,I must reread and correct ,too quickly steve ,too quickly ,hiihi

hope you understand my post even though

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Don Limuti wrote on Oct. 21, 2009 @ 22:07 GMT
Dear Steve,

Thanks for your information. I could understand a little. I wish you had an entry in this contest. I have a vague notion that rotating spheres are something like Feynman's rotating arrows.

The terms "Lambda-Hop" and "Digital Wave" are terms that I use to explain how QM particles move. I do not think anyone else uses them (yet). Lambda Algebra is not involved.

Digital Wave theory sees space-time as continuous but the way that QM particles move on it is discontinuous. Each particle sees a quantized space time even though space-time itself is not quantized.

Making this Digital Wave theory that can explain so much (in my humble opinion) is easy compared to making an experiment to show its predictions that:

1. The speed of light is a function of the wavelength of the light. I think about 8 more digits on the current 8 would do it. Michelson-Morley where are you? The change in speed over the visible spectrum might be small but still faster than I can walk.

2. The Planck Mass is the largest quantum possible. Experimenters are working on this (see Tejinder Singh's essay entry on m-mass). The largest mass to date to show QM interference is the buckyball C60 which is about 15 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck mass.

3. Particles vibrate (lambda-hop) at zero temperature. Can an experiment be made to show this? I think it is possible with a large particle like C60 and measuring particles like photons. Perhaps there is someone in the FQXi organization who can perform this experiment?

Don L.




Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 11:07 GMT
Dear Don ,

Thanks too .Probably the next year for the contest ,

I will make a good resume of my theory with all centers of interest .

Ten pages ,One page for one center of interest .Math ,physic,chemistry ,biology and evolution,,ecology,sociology,astronomy ,cosmology ,astrobiology,philosophy and spirituality ,universality .

Could you explain me a little the Feynman's rotating arrows,it seems interesting .

Good luck for the contest and your works ,

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 18:13 GMT
Dear Don ,

When you say

I have a vague notion that rotating spheres are something like Feynman's rotating arrows.

Is it in relation with vectors of the rotations ? I am going to learn more about that on net.

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Don Limuti (www.zenophysics.com) wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 22:58 GMT
Steve,

Arjen Dijksman (essayist) referenced me to a wiki site I believe he created titled Principles of Quantum Mechanics at Wikiversity. You may be interested by the appearing/disappearing animation of the particle in a box. That is where I learned about Feynman's rotating arrows. I also think Feynman also talks about them in his little book "QED".

Don L.

report post as inappropriate


Arjen Dijksman wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 08:54 GMT
Don, Steve,

Yes, Feynman talks about rotating arrows in his little book 'QED'. A similar version of this book's lectures may be viewed at the Vega Science Trust. Very instructive (and entertaining like all of Feynman's appearances).

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 10:51 GMT
Thanks to both of you ,it's relevant

I am going to see more .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 10:16 GMT
Hi Dear Arje, Don ,Frank ,all ,

I begin to encircle the works of Mr Feynman ,his extrapolations are relevant ideed .He was very creative during his life .

I like some diagrams .Bohr probably helps him to evolve in sciences .I see too ,he was a very good professor for students .It's very beautiful in fact .

Where I disagree it's about the reversibility of time .

I disagree too about some actual extrapolations too with diagrams and strings but it's personal of course .

About the superfluidity ,it's very relevant too.

The rotating arrows seem interesting with good adaptations .

Thanks to show me some informations about Mr Feynman and his works .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 19:33 GMT
I see his QED ,super ,fantastic ,the electron positron effect is very relevant .

I think It's really a question of sense ,the rotation ....when a particle becomes light or when the light becomes mass ,all is a question of sense .

The evolution is an important point I think about the polarisation of very weak particles in the light chief orchestra .The codes inside the quantum entanglement is really fascinating .The gravity chooses its synchronizations....

Could you tell me more about the QED please ?

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


NN wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 06:39 GMT
i note the significance of heavier and heavior nanostructured material generation, specially in a crystalline form. This is feasable,as one has to hit back at the right method of preparation. So far only carbon material has been successfully nanostructured in a pure form till C60. However, it so happens that higher structure states do co-exist and a sample so prepared may sho the effects due to larger configuraions provided these are significant. The other thing that comes to my mind is to try gold as the heavy material and workout a heavier nano-structured configuration of it. It is all a matter of physically and or chemically treating the basic gold and hit upon a technique of preparation that generates such structures.

In India there is a technique of preparing a beauty black particulate matter that has high nanostructured content of carbon, called 'kajal'. It spreads and lubriactes the eyebrowse/lashes beatifully in black. The technique uses an earthen lamp with oil cotton wick to light the flame. When such a lamp is partially covered with a blank earthen lamp, soot deposited on it is seen to be rich in the nanostructured carbon. it still needs to be studied experimnetally in detail!!

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 10:25 GMT
Hello dear Narendra Nath ,

This C is fascinating .Perhaps with a BEC ,near the zero absolute and its decimals .The restructuration thus with different thermodynamical parameters and variables can be seen and extrapolated .The time has built beautiful sphere like the C60 .

The Au (A=197,Z=79) seems very relevant for its properties ,physical and chemical.

its physical properties are specifics ,the crystalisation and its weight of 19.3 can be interpreted.

Like the leafs of silicate ,argiles,....it can be put in leafs (0.0001 mm),only the green light pass .

Its mono or tri valences too is relevant for the polarity .If we go more far with its electro weak polarity ,it's interesting about the increase of mass.

Its comportment with the Cu ,Ag or Te ...more C and N ..K et H .

If we link with the ionic radius of 1.37 Angtrom and the entangled spheres thus we can play with the dipolar moment .We can play with the gravity thus and the complexification .

The temperature and the volume and the pression can thus create many thing ,like salts or others polarisations with specific properties .

The electron changes the valences .For the Au we have 2 electrons d and 1 s which change the tri valences .The property of non oxydation too is relevant about the interactions.

Do you know its comportment with the mercure ,instantly it becomes an amalgam .

If I return to the argiles ,leafs of silicates ,a correlation can be made too about the superimposings of these loafs.Like colloid for a complex of polarities .The light there is relevant about the different colors .

The mass can be correlated with the dipolar moment .

Those atoms and their properties are incredibles .Thanks to mother nature in fact .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve D wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 10:32 GMT
UA is Au of course .Sorry for my writings ,too quickly.

report post as inappropriate


NN wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 13:46 GMT
Thanks, Steve. Youhave provided excellent elaborations to my brief comments for i feel much obliged. i know the significance of handling gold nanostructures and its unique properties like non-oxidation, amalgamisation with another heavy metal Hg and so on. let us see if some young experimentalists engaged in nanostructure physics attempts to prepare the sample and then study its behaviour. We expect to conform to neither calssical nor quantum regimes... so we expect.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 19:39 GMT
Hello dear Don ,Narendra Nath,all ,

Dear Narendra,

Sorry I wouldn't give you a lesson ,it's my kind of writing in fact .I would to say that .

I wish all the best for these young engeniers.

This research seem very interesting about the properties of our nature .

It's fascinating ,You know for example (,me who like plants ,I have a big collection in my small garden )I have a plant of the familly of tradescantia ,incredible its geometry .At the begining I searched why the water draws like that on the surface of this plant .I beleived it was a oil or a substance but no it's the geometry which implies this impermeability .The drop of water are balanced ,the spheroids are in equilibrium at the surface and the gravity makes the rest .The nature is really incredible .We have all around us in fact and all is complemenatry and has a rule and properties under physical laws.

Dear Don

I think a lot about these arrows ,it seems very relevant about the different vectors ,

If I correlate with the numbers and the volume of the sphere more its rotation ,

thus a kind of superimposing can be inserted too for these rotations with vectors .

It's very interesting about the entanglement and the contact for the synchronizations in fact .Like a fractal of all in fact ,a proportional fractal .If a big music ,evolutive exists ,thus all is linked in this harmony ,thus the fractal is proportional ,a fractal of fields ,or spheres and rot ,a fractal of interactions ,or a fractal of mass ,or energy,all is proportional in these steps of course .Thus the vectors can be inserted of course .The complexity appears with these rotations and numbers of vectors more their specificities.It's a real puzzle all that .Oh lalala .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 19:17 GMT
Hi Don:

What do you think of the following please? You had indicated at least partial acceptance of this, is that correct?

Jonathan Dickau had written to me:

"I just re-read your second post above and it made a bit more sense of something you were saying in the earlier post. Your statement at the end "How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea." is right on. Perhaps the key, as you say, is to recognize that there is both an attractive and repulsive component at work - which changes the effective action at different levels of scale. This makes unification simpler."

"We end up 1) Balancing/unifying scale and 2) Balancing attraction and repulsion in conjunction with space manifesting both gravitationally and electromagnetically. (Think wave/particle)."

When you consider the extremes of electromagnetic energy/space (e.g., photons and the [relatively disintegrated] Sun) as they relate to extremes of scale, invisibility AND relatively disintegrated come to mind. Comparatively, look at the [relatively integrated] Earth and the clear/transparent/invisible sky. Disintegrated and integrated go hand-in-hand (along with particle/wave) in conjunction with balancing and uniting invisible/visible AND scale. That is huge, is it not? See how this connects with space manifesting as electromagnetic/gravitational energy?

report post as inappropriate


Author Don Limuti wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 07:43 GMT
Hi Frank,

I hope this is useful...and if you know of any cosmologists pass this along.

One part of my work on "digital wave theory" resulted in an equation that gives the distance between ordinary masses (like golf balls) as a function of the wavelength of the masses. The wavelength of the masses is developed from a deBroglie matter wave (modified to apply for ordinary matter). I modified it to apply to golf balls instead of electrons.

Now all the stars in the sky (masses in space-time) can be thought of as masses with wavelength, interconnected via their distances which can be considered wavelengths. In a way there is no empty space, the universe is one mass.

Another result of this theory is that when masses are separated the masses loose mass (their wavelength increases). This potential energy goes into the space between the masses, and yes empty space has mass (it is not very much, but it might be what some cosmologists are looking for). This is straightforward conservation of mass/energy. There are two possible consequences that I see:

1. There is no way to spot this mass between the stars. You can call it mass or energy and it may be the Dark stuff being sought.

2. As the universe expands something interesting happens. The stars become less massive (longer wavelengths because of greater separation) and the space becomes more massive. The lighter stars will increase their velocity outward and the universe will have an accelerating expansion.

Everything I have done is in agreement with Einstein's notion of gravity bending space time. I see gravity as only an attractive force, so I cannot be of any help there.

Don L.




Author Don Limuti wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 08:02 GMT
Narendra,

I did investigate beauty black. I believe it is also known as lamp black and has industrial purposes. It is manufactured by companies that also produce C60. Very interesting. The particles are very small and probably have QM properties. I would be careful using this stuff cosmetically particularly if the particles can become air born and inhaled.

I have this assumption that I am not sure of. What do you think of this:

Does a QM particle have to be "non identifiable"? An electron cannot be distinguished from another electron and it is very QM. A beauty black particle can be distinguished from another beauty black particle because they are amorphous. Does this effect their QM properties?

Thanks,

Don L.




Author Don Limuti wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 08:37 GMT
Arjen, Steve,

That Vega Science Trust link was just super. I listened to all four lectures by Feynman. Here are some thoughts and questions:

1. I was reading that Feynman's presentation and concepts (diagrams) are not used for mainstream physics education anymore. Why? What has taken their place?

2. The talks indicated that isolated electrons spontaneously emitted and absorbed photons. I could not find any references to this ?!?! I came across one reference to virtual photons? What gives?

3. QED is in general agreement with my pet "digital wave theory" with two exceptions that I think may explain the "infinities": a. The photon really has a mass. b. The electron's rest mass number is not quite right because the electron is never at rest. It has a minimum velocity of something like 3.7 x 10^-37 m/s.

4. While looking at this minimum velocity I realized I made a mistake in my essay. I stated that the minimum velocities the theory develops may explain "rest mass". No way! the Vo is way to small. Sometimes I get my best exercise by jumping to conclusions.

Thanks for your info and help,

Don L.




Anonymous wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 10:02 GMT
Dear Don ,

2. The talks indicated that isolated electrons spontaneously emitted and absorbed photons. I could not find any references to this ?!?! I came across one reference to virtual photons? What gives?

It is very relevant about the potential of the polarity of stable system like gravity .

Our gravitational system thus have the capacity to polarise for the evolution point of vue .I ask me if the quantum system is a system with two systems ,gravity/electromagnetism thus a correlation with the sense of rotation and the velocity of rot too (I think that the difference with spinal and orbital thus is relevant ).In fact all is light and gravity .Probably in the strong interactions ,the system is more irreversible more we go towards the planck scale and its ultim maximum enrgy .The mass and the light are the same in fact with tyhis time which implants .

You know I think the same about light ,it is the weakest mass thus in my theory ,they turn in the maximum

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 18:54 GMT
Dear Don ,

When you say It has a minimum velocity of something like 3.7 x 10^-37 m/s.

What is it exactly ,if I correlate with the mass ,it is not possible in fact .Are you sure about ^-37 m/s .

I think it is the contrary for the link velocity and mass .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 21:57 GMT
Steve,

You are reminding me that I need to take another pass at explaining my work and theory. It is not as clear as I would like it. Does this help in answering your question?

1. I start by fully believing the work of a) Zeno b) Newton c) Einstein and d) deBroglie

2. I saw how a synthesis of their work could answer some of the question of modern physics. I feel like...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 05:13 GMT
Hi Don. What do you think of the following in relation to gravity, electromagnetism, and your last post?

It is the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations that makes these observations possible, AS IT ALLOWS US TO SEE FARTHER.

THE INCREASING TRANSPARENCY/INVISIBILITY OF SPACE IN ASTRONOMICAL/TELESCOPIC OBSERVATIONS EXPLAINS THE REDSHIFT.

Astronomical/telescopic observations and dreams both involve a narrowing/"telescoping" of vision. Astronomical/telescopic observations have significant similarities with dreams. Both dreams and astronomical/telescopic observations involve increasing invisibility/transparency of space. Telescopic/astronomical observations are interactive creations of thought to a significant extent.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 10:21 GMT
Hello Don ,

Thanks ,I see more clear indeed .In all case it is very relevant your ideas and developments .I read them with interest.

Indeed the important point is the non zero limit .

I agree too about our actual physics ,it is time to make a balance between maths and physics in my opinion .It exists too much inutiles math extrapolations without limits .It is more a confusion than an improvement of physics .

3D and the time constant is very important .

Congratulations and good luck at this constest .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Don Limuti wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 18:58 GMT
Steve,

Thanks for your interest and good luck in your efforts.

Don L.




Anonymous wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 20:11 GMT
Frank,

Gravity and electro-magnetism are ways we name and explain the forces we see in the world around us. There are lots of ways of doing this.

Your way of looking at it is an interesting type of "clipped sentence" logic that I have no way of reproducing the experience of for myself. I seem to be missing the key to unlock the dream. So, I would ask you how do you think my essay fits in with your concepts?

Don L.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 12:10 GMT
Thanks dear Don ,

Hope my efforts to create this Humanistic sciences center shall permit to create it really .It is my reason of life the creation of this center .All are welcome for synergies of course ,we must act .

Thanks for you explaination.

I see in your work a real desire to correlate pragmatically our models.

You superimpose interesting ideas of Zeno, Einstein ,de broglie ....

Here is my answer .

1,2 Indeed the reasonable is better than the not rationality ,we like our 3 D in this time constant,fortunaly .

3 Indeed about the "without movelment appearings" it is bizare like hidden systems .

About 4 ,the waves indeed and the particles are linked in a specific rotating system implying movements and mass.The system can be stationary localy and only that ,it is the gravity and its stability.The electrons are stables .

Thus it is logic the duality is linked with the rotatuing spheres still .The two comportments are linked thus.

5,Newton,your point of vue about inertie is interesting ,but if all is in this equation of attraction ,of forces.There is thus a main cause of this gravity .For me these rot spheres.The cause of these rotations implying mass is the intrinsic code and its informations,inside the quantum architecture .

Thus the main code is inside the main central sphere .Like that all has a cause and effects .

6,7 I need some explainations because there I don't understand what is this velocity ,it is not possible dear don I think .what is your equation to arrive to this velocity .what kind of velocity do you use and why this link with mass.

8 there I think you make an error if you insert strings ,already what your origin of mass ,gravity is on the false road ,don't take that bad ,I just want to undertand your line of reasoning and your tools .In fact in a theory ,all fundamentals equations can dance easily in the model .It is in fact a proof of the universality of the theory .

Your model is very interesting if you synchronize some fundamentals I think,the velocity at this scale is different than your near zero limit .

Your velocity makes me think to a Bose Einstein condensate where we can play with thermodynamical variables like temperature .Thus there I agree ,the velocities can decrease but not in our stable system I think .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Don Limuti wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 20:40 GMT
Hi Steve,

I have to consider my own theory "bazaar". Then I take a look at the Standard Model, string theory, and many worlds theory and I reconsider the meaning of "bazaar" and realized that that it can be a "transfinite" concept:)

It also makes me glad that this contest has so many entries that lament the course physics has taken and are promoting ways to make it rational and reasonable.

The conversation is wonderful.

Thanks,

Don L.




Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 18:06 GMT
Hi Don ,

Yes ,viva el reasonability thus .ahahaha what a bazaar ,We are all lost in the imaginaries and their infinities .Fortunaly ...it exists the rational .After all ,an apple will fall down always towards the center of our Earth ,now this constant is not a real constant but of course the decimal is far of the ,.....after all it is like that in this Universe .A planet is a planet ,a bee is a bee and a galaxy is a galaxy.

A big bazaar this Earth system ,an incredible bazaar in the ocean of the irrational .But we evolve fortunaly .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 20, 2009 @ 11:06 GMT
Hello dear Don ,

How are you ,fine I hope and your bazaar like you named it .

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jan. 10, 2010 @ 21:45 GMT
Hello Don,

Well I'm returning a bit late to your forum, but better late than never;-) I return to your November 2 post:

1. I don't exactly know why Feynman's concepts aren't more widely used for mainstream physics education. One of the problems I see is that physics education starts with classical physics and introduces quantum physics in a historical way (blackbody radiation, hydrogen atom, wave-particle duality...). Feynman's presentation doesn't fit easily in this history, or it comes really at the end of the story (in the 1940s). That's a pity. I think it's possible to develop pedagogical approaches that start from quantum physics and end with classical forces. That would be a more deductive way to teach physics, because it would start at the most fundamental: photons and electrons.

2. Do you remember where in the talks Feynman indicated that isolated electrons could spontanously emit and absorb photons? Maybe he's indeed talking about virtual photons? There's much to say about virtual photons, but I'm still quite confused about them. To me a photon is a photon, and I prefer to think about them as real. Otherwise, spontaneous emission is well documented on the web (for example at wikipedia) but in quantum optics, it is a special case of stimulated emission (by the vacuum state). And I don't know about spontaneous absorption. In my view, absorption is always stimulated (by the photon that is absorbed).

3. What do you mean when saying that the photon really has a mass? What experimental consequences? About your minimum velocity of the electron, I haven't understood yet exactly how it emerges.

Greetings,

Arjen

report post as inappropriate


Author Don Limuti wrote on Jan. 11, 2010 @ 11:22 GMT
Argen good to hear back from you. Your recommendation of the Australian web site with the Feynman lectures was just what I needed. I went on to read QED and Six Easy Pieces, along with the less technical the Joy of Finding Things Out.

1. Yes, physics is taught historically, classical first and then the historical fumbling into the quantum. And at the end of this I think Feynman should be required reading, because he emphasizes the “unknowable physicality of quantum particles” which he believes will perhaps never be deciphered but can be known via mathematics and his diagrams.

2. Feynman says all the strangeness of quantum mechanics can be seen in the double slit experiment where an electron beam hits a target encompassing two slits. It is postulated that an electron goes thru either one slit or the other. If we do not follow how the electron goes (give it energy to enable our sight) we get an interference pattern (on a screen behind the slits) making it seem that the electron went thru both slits simultaneously (the way a water wave does). Hence there is something wrong with the postulate that the electron (which was considered a thing) goes thru one slit or the other.

3. Heisenberg came to the conclusion (probably first) that the electron is not a thing and that it and all particles must obey an uncertainty principle. It is this uncertainty principle which prevents us from saying that the electron went thru one slit or the other. So, we still can believe that the electron goes thru one slit or the other but we cannot determine which one because of the uncertainty principle.

4. I believe there is another cleaner way to look at why the electron goes thru both slits simultaneously. I postulate that the electron and all particles (including photons) move in a peculiar way. They appear at a time and place and they reappear at an adjacent time and place. This way of moving fits very nicely with the deBroglie wave equation thus the name Digital Wave Theory. The electron approaching a double slit to within a wavelength makes a hop and appears on the other side without having to invoke uncertainty. The electron still obeys all of the Feynman rules, but now there is no mystery about how it can go thru both holes simultaneously. And I believe the nature of gravity comes about and can be derived from the way that particles move by hopping over time and space.

5. Here is the reasoning about photons having mass:

a. I start with a particle with mass and say it moves by hopping.

b. The particle is always moving and thus hopping because it is a wave according to deBroglie.

c. I derived a minimum velocity that this particle of mass m can have. It cannot be zero because it must move to be a wave.

d. The equation derived for the minimum velocity is a second order polynomial that has two roots. When plotted one root looks like a slow moving massive particle. The other root looks like a photon moving very, very close to c except at very, very high energies.

e. Thus, the general particle with mass m that I started with is really two particles, one can be seen as ordinary matter the other can be seen as a photon. These photons as seen in the plot show in the essay travel slightly slower than c and this speed varies with wavelength.

f. Photons have mass because they are one of the solutions to an equation that starts with a generalized particle with mass. The consequence of having this mass is that they do not quite travel at c, but approach it so closely that our current instruments and experiments are not yet in range and least 10 more digits of accuracy is required to see this at visual wavelengths.

6. I have this one criticism of Feynman in that he did not explain why electrons moving uniformly in a straight line emit and absorb photons. Perhaps I missed something that was obvious? I request that anyone who knows to pass the information along to me. So, Arjen when you find out let me know.

7. This theory of particles moving as digital waves fits very nicely with superconductivity. At absolute zero the electrons still have velocity and can sustain a current. The material it is moving through has a crystal structure that provides a clean landing spot for an electron if it is moving with hops at just the right wavelength. When the velocity of the electron matches the spaces available for it to land and superconductivity results.

Arjin, this contest gets somewhat boring when the judging starts, and it was a pleasure to respond to your post. I think I may have gotten a little long winded. Thanks for the opportunity!

Best of Luck to you and all,

Don Limuti




Author Don Limuti wrote on Jan. 12, 2010 @ 03:18 GMT
Arjin,

I did not do a very good job let me try again.

I do not show how a minimum velocity for a particles emerges. I postulate a minimum velocity and show how it can be accounted for in terms of gravity and inertia. I can then get an equation for this postulated velocity Vo. When this equation for Vo is solved it shows both particle and photons as the two roots of the equation.

I think this answers your question better than the longer one above.

Thanks,

Don Limuti




Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 17, 2010 @ 14:37 GMT
Hi all ,

More a sphere turns, less is its mass .m v .simply

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Don Limuti wrote on Jan. 18, 2010 @ 08:12 GMT
Hi Steve,

I am fine, and I hope you are too.

As you noticed my spelling can stand some improvement, occasionally it is bizarre.

In the bazaar of physics, if I may use that metaphor, there are many many theories and constructions based upon measurements and mathematical (logical) constructions. Some of them are bizarre. In particular quantum mechanics as expressed by Feynman as unknowable except via the mathematics and his diagrams is bizarre along with the philosophy of shut up and calculate.

I do respect Feynman for acknowledging that there is room for doubt and that eventually a physical explanation for what is happening on the quantum level may be presented. He was very honest in his expression of how bizarre his position was and that he could not see a way around it. I believe he made such a strong point of this in order to get others off their butts and remedy the situation.

Doubt is the essence of science.

Terry P. and Arjen D. and others have presented essays that further this cause of bringing reason to physics.

I am interested in your spheres, and hope to hear more about them.

Don Limuti




Arjen Dijksman wrote on Jan. 18, 2010 @ 20:31 GMT
Hi Don,

You did a very good job in your first (longer) explanation. It formulated differently what you wrote in your essay. To be honest, I hadn't re-read your essay before asking my questions of Jan 10. When I read your answer, I was reminded of your nice graph with the four roots. Your model is creative, lambda-hops account for the wave-particle nature of particles. Yet honestly said, I have difficulty to see how this can be related with the more formal part of quantum mechanics: state vector, amplitude and probabilities as square amplitudes, as well as with other characteristics of particles (spin, charge...).

With respect to your point 6, I don't think Feynman could have explained that electrons travelling in a straight line emit or absorb photons, because his theory doesn't predict that, and as far as I know, this isn't observed by experiments (elsewise I have missed a point...).

Good luck for tomorrow;-)

Arjen

report post as inappropriate


Author Don Limuti wrote on Jan. 18, 2010 @ 22:08 GMT
Argen,

I am hoping (not to be confused with hopping) that some bright person will find the link that this theory has to the more formal aspects of quantum mechanics. I think the missing link goes something like: if you look for a particle at its wavelength crossings the energy needed to measure its presence is small. If the particle is observed further away from its crossing more energy will be needed to bring it out of superposition for the measurement. If you are not looking at where your are measuring the particle (because you assume it is continuous thingy) then the whole process looks like a crap shoot and you think of it as involving probabilities.

The work that I have presented is far from a theory of everything. It is more like: Hey guys and girls, look what I found! Particles and photons are more closely related than expected and Gravity is fundamental on the quantum scale. Right now Digital Wave Theory is just a toy. I am hoping that some in the FQXi group will enjoying playing with it.

Argen, Thanks for your support, good questions, fine essay and very informative web presence. I am rooting for you to win.

Don Limuti




Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 24, 2010 @ 11:22 GMT
Hi dear Don,

Thank you, I am well,it could be better but that goes hihihi.

I liked your essay and I begin to know the works of Feynman, it is really very interesting.

I thank you for my spheres, I have still a lot to do you know 34 years old,this year I must stabilize all that.

After I will publish and will improve the theory.I must create this sciences center too, you are welcome dear don when it will be created of course, but I am a bad administrator, but I evolve.

I will tell you the evolution.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.