CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]
TOPIC:
Meditations on First Principles Underlying an Assumed Matter-Antimatter Gravitational Repulsion: A Dialectic Essay by Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet wrote on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 11:23 GMT
Essay AbstractAlthough it is widely assumed that gravitation is attraction only, the existence of gravitational repulsion cannot be excluded. In a recent study, for the first time non-classical physical principles underlying an assumed matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion have been positively identified. This dialectic essay focusses on the all-determining first cycle of thesis, antithesis and synthesis of that study, and explains why these principles - together called: the Elementary Process Theory (EPT) - are outside the framework of contemporary physical theories. A Cartesian analysis of the assumption on gravitational repulsion yields the unquestionable thesis that antimatter then must have positive rest mass and negative gravitational mass. The antithesis to this thesis is then that this combination of properties is impossible from the perspective of established theories. The synthesis is then that this combination of properties has to be underlied by a fundamentally new physical principle, which is that rest-mass-having particles alternate between a particlelike state and a wavelike state. The final section addresses the question of correctness and completeness of the EPT.
Author BioAfter a master study Chemical Engineering at Eindhoven University of Technology (Netherlands), Marcoen Cabbolet has conducted a PhD research in the foundations of physics on his own initiative. The project started at the Kharkov Physico-Technological Institute (Ukraine), where the main physical results were obtained. After severe illness of the supervisor, the project was relocated to the Netherlands, where the mathematical formalization was fine-tuned. However, the unorthodoxy of the results led to hostilities at Tilburg University and Eindhoven University of Technology. But after yet another relocation, the 15-year project was concluded in 2011 with great honor at Brussels Free University (Belgium).
Download Essay PDF File
Daniel L Burnstein wrote on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 17:08 GMT
The questions you raise are very interesting and contribute to the discussion about the nature of gravity.
I have been working on an hypothetical universe in which gravity is an emergent composite force. Within that universe, which I can the quantum-geometrical universe (QGU), the negative gravity you refer to is a particular solution of a general equation that describes gravitational interactions.
Also, you conclude your essay with the following:
"[...] the upcoming years the prediction of the EPT will be investigated that in individual processes space is formed as a substance {that is, the EPT predicts the existence of `elements of physical reality' that constitute space itself. The idea is then to model this mechanism quantitatively, and to investigate whether this yields a solution to the dark energy problem in physical cosmology."
That space is made of "elements of physical reality" is one of two axioms from the quantum-geometrical universe's physics emerge. Interestingly, an effect similar to the dark energy effect emerges naturally from the two axioms of the QGU and is, like gravity, a particular solution of the equation that describes within it gravitation interactions.
That said, though a theory cannot be understood within the framework of another theory that uses a different axiom set, I have found we share some interesting insights.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 18:03 GMT
Hello to both of you,
I like these words:... "That said, though a theory cannot be understood within the framework of another theory that uses a different axiom set, I have found we share some interesting insights."
Indeed , we must be sure that the axiomatizations and superimposings are rational.If not ; we have pseudo sciences full of irrationalties.
A set of axioms is rational if and only if all axioms are rational.
How can we approach our foundamentals if we do not superimpose with the biggest determinism.
All roads do not go to Roma !
Best Regards
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 22:36 GMT
Hello Daniel, Steve,
@Daniel: thanks for commenting on my essay.
Am I correct that you obtain a quantum-theoretical formulation of the physics of gravitational repulsion from just two assumptions?
That would be quite spectacular, given that e.g. non-relativistic quantum mechanics has already more than two axioms.
Are your two assumptions (or axioms) all of the assumptions of the entire theory, or are these assumptions that are added to the assumptions of the quantum framework?
I found it impossible to describe gravitational repulsion in the framework of quantum mechanics, mainly for the reasons mentioned in the essay. Another (philosophical) point is that in the (standard) framework of quantum theory a particle only has the property "gravitational mass" if it is in the eigenstate of the corresponding operator, and it is only in that eigenstate when the gravitational mass is observed, or when the spectrum of the operator has only one value (so that the particle is always in the eigenstate). So, Daniel, how do you cope with that in your theory?
@Steve: I agree with you that not all roads lead to Rome.
What do you mean when you write that an axiomatization has to be rational? What are the criteria for rationality of an axiomatization? Is it possible to give an irrational axiomatization of a theory?
Regards, Marcoen
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 00:43 GMT
Hello Marcoen,
I say simply that it depends of what we want to interpret. An axiom in my line of reasoning must be rational when we speak about our rational sciences.
The criteria for this rationality are numerous and in all centers of analyzes, physics,maths, biology, chemistry,technology,computing even,....
You know I am not a fan of anti-thesis. I prefer the objective and deterministic road. The criteria are like the domains or limits or this or that, they are always rational if they want to explain our pure physics and its laws. It is like for the time.Let's take its irreversibility on the entropical arrow of time.We cannot say that this time is reversible.That, it is rational. The time travel is irrational, the space travel is rational.
Lifes inside our Universe everywhere inside this universal sphere,it is rational.
Harry Potter is irrational. The taxonomy of plants and animals and fungis is rational. The micro Black Holes are irrational. The centers of galaxies are spheres, BH ,it is rational. Our Universe is a sphere, it is rational. The extradimensions are irrational. The photosynthesis is rational. the rotations are rational, the spheres are rational. The irrational algeberas are irrational.a cell is rational like is rational a H or a C or a N or O .....amino acids ....adn EVOLUTION is rational .....this earth becomes irrational.....a music of Mozart is rational.....a hybiscus syriacus blue bird blue sky is rational.... avatar is rational and irrational ....euler was rational...borh also ...Newtom also...time machine is irrational....arms , weapons,monney,...are irrational.....in fact the list is so long.we can make a list of actual scientists if you want but perhaps it is not a good idea. The vanity is so important inside this international sciences community.What a world :)
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Daniel L Burnstein replied on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 03:51 GMT
@Marcoen,
"@Daniel: thanks for commenting on my essay.
Am I correct that you obtain a quantum-theoretical formulation of the physics of gravitational repulsion from just two assumptions?"
Yes. This is correct.
"Are your two assumptions (or axioms) all of the assumptions of the entire theory, or are these assumptions that are added to the assumptions of the quantum framework?"
Yes, the two axioms are the only assumptions. The rest of the theory is directly derived from them. For a brief introduction the main ideas, you can read my recent entry in the FQXi contest. If after reader questions remain, and you're interested to see an exposition of the entire framework, I'd be happy to direct you to a larger document (120 pages), which is the first part of an introductory work to the concepts.
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 17:14 GMT
@Steve
You wrote that you are no fan of antitheses. A dialectic process is merely a methodology in theory development, by which -- loosely speaking -- new knowledge is developed in a dialogue. One poses a thesis, someone else then objects to this thesis from a particular point of view, you then adjust the thesis into a new one, etc. The antithesis is merely the (objective) name for the objection to the thesis. That's it, in principle.
Then about rationality. There is such a concept in mathematics: a number can be rational or irrational. There is also such a concept in philosophy: these two have nothing to do with each other. Although you speak of irrational algebra's, I get the impression that you refer to the philosophical concept of rationality. Usually, the predicate "rational" only applies to beliefs, behavior, or other things that involve a choice. In your comment, however, you also apply it to substances like atoms and amino acids. But how does an object in itself involve a rational choice? You might want to think this part of your rationality concept over. Furthermore, it is very difficult to give an objective definition of what rationality is. You say that space travel is rational, but when the idea was first suggested a century ago it was dismissed as completely irrational. You might want to develop objective criteria; there are already some theories, so you could get famiar with them and then propose an improvement.
@Daniel: I am currently in a mountain cabin with a bad internet connection; I'll get back to you as soon as possible.
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 19:58 GMT
Marcoen,
each person is free to have his own interpretations of what is really this rationality. It is not necessary to make a discourse about the numbers. I know what is a rational number or an irrational number. I know what is pi !a number between rationals and reals. If you think that the transcendance is an irrational tool,so we must be sure of what is a real interpretation of an irrational number. The constants are not there to imply confusions about the irrationalities of numbers.The constants and numbers are there to imply an evolutive harmonization.
The process Marcoen is rational if and only if the tools are rational.You know, physics are not a simple play of maths without RATIONALSIM. How can you have a correct process if the tools do not respect the foundamentals laws and convergences.
The geometrical algebras(lie or this or that...) must have correct UNIVERSAL DOMAINS!!! Your meaning of the antithesis is just a play of confusions at my humble opinion. Why I say that ? just because I see how you interpret irrationally the dark energy.:)
Friedman lemaitre........expansion+curvature=mass of Universe +DE...my model says .....EUREKA .THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT IS OK IF AND ONLY IF THE UNIVERSAL SPHERE IS CLOSED AND IN EVOLUTION.see the baryons and the density .Hubble will agree.....now insert my quantum spheres and cosmological spheres inside this closed evolutive universal sphere.The serie is finite and precise considering the uniqueness.And at the two scales in 3D of course.
Spherically and rationaly yours
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 11:02 GMT
Hello Steve,
The notion of antithesis that I have used in my essay is not something that I have made up myself, not have I given it a new meaning: it is a common notion in philosophy. There are several forms of dialectic reasoning, though.
Furthermore, you wrote that every person is entitled to have his own idea on rationality. I agree with that to a certain degree. I am a postmodernist myself, so I think it is impossible to give criteria for a rationality predicate that work for all persons under all circumstances and in all contexts. There are always cultural differences that are irreducable: what in a given situation is a rational choice in one culture may be irrational in another culture, and there is no set of "transcultural" rules that can determine which culture is the best.
Best regards, Marcoen
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 00:21 GMT
Hello Marcoen,
I am understanding, it is cool to tell me it.
I agree about your words, but I beleive strongly that the universalism is the best road. The rationality is universal and possesses its laws and foundamentals.
You say"what in a given situation is a rational choice in one culture may be irrational in another culture, and there is no set of "transcultural" rules that...
view entire post
Hello Marcoen,
I am understanding, it is cool to tell me it.
I agree about your words, but I beleive strongly that the universalism is the best road. The rationality is universal and possesses its laws and foundamentals.
You say"what in a given situation is a rational choice in one culture may be irrational in another culture, and there is no set of "transcultural" rules that can determine which culture is the best."
I don't really agree, because when a person is universal, the differences disappear. The irrationalities are in all cultures, religions or countries.In fact the irrationality is simply the sister of the stupidity. If it exists chaotic and irrational parameters inside the systems of all countries, cultures or religions(I am repeating :)) So it is just due to unconsciousness and the stupidity.The problem is that it exists stupid persons in several high spheres.These high spheres must be entirely universal. If not, we can add several chaotic exponentials quickly. You know Marcoan, the global earth is irrational in its pure analyze of foundamental equilibriums. The rational Universe is the same for all after all.We live all on this blue planet. We are all results of evolution.We are all humans. Why so ? the probelm is more complex than we can imagine in fact. Just due to an add of several chaotic parameters, irrational.
The real secret is this universality in evolution spherization. We are tools of optimization spherization.We are catalyzers in fact of harmonization. Why so the high spheres are not able to solve this globality ???? We return at a simple evidence about this stupidity and unconsciousness cited above. You know, personally I beleive that the hour is serious. I beleive strongly that it is time to act globbaly for the well of all. I fear of several chaotic exponentials if we do not harmonize quickly several systems. Instead of be in competition, I think that the religions can work together. If the chiefs of main religions say the peace, it will be more easy for this spherization of high spheres. In all case , at all problem, it exists a solution.Perhaps it's time to think about this global solution.
Do you know the composting Marcoen, I have worked a lot this topic, I beleive that the composting at big scale is one solution for the ecology like the increasing of vegetal mass by vegetal multiplication. In fact , you know what ? I see that a lot of people have forgotten their links with nature. We live in big towns without trees and plants and flowers ...even the bees they kill them. In fact, we loose our foundamental ecosystems, we loose our instincts, our senses. It is not rational all that Marcoen. the earth in the logic must be a big harmonized garden of equilibriums. Of course we must also prevent the future protection against meteorits....we do not know when, but we can say that we shall have a meteorit one day. What a big puzzle !
How can we solve all our probelms.......in centralizing the skilling and competences for the well of all. A time for all after all ! The solutions exist in all centers of interest in fact.The rational solutions exists. Like is rational an euler analyze.
I wish you all the best in this contest.
Best Regards
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 17:25 GMT
Marcoen,
Your argument and discussion cover some of the same territory as mine but is more substantive.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 22:55 GMT
Jim,
Having looked into your essay, my conclusion is that our essays have a different objective. My essay intends to present a part of the development of one particular theory in detail, while your essay is clearly intended to give a broad overview of various theoretical and practical ideas in the realm of gravitation. Of course, that leaves less room for detail. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Regards, Marcoen
Larisa wrote on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 20:52 GMT
Marcoen,
Excellent essay!
Good luck with the contest.
Larisa
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 22:49 GMT
Larisa,
Thanks for the kind words!
Regards, Marcoen
Alex wrote on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 08:15 GMT
Dear Marcoen,
Great essay!
Thank you,
Alex
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 22:50 GMT
Alex,
Thank you for your comment!
Regards, Marcoen
Evgeny Eskenazi wrote on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 09:25 GMT
Marcoen,
Very modern and original view on the interaction of the matter with antimatter. It is worth to look into it in more detail and perform an experiment to see how it works in real.
I wish you good luck with continuation of this research and bringing even more interesting results!
Best regards,
Evgeny
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 23:01 GMT
Hello Evgeny,
Thanks for commenting on my essay.
The most important experiment -- in this context, that is! -- will be done by the AEGIS-collaboration at CERN. If the outcome is positive for my research then I can use astronmical data for another empirical test of the theory. This has the advantage that it is not necessary to perform an expensive experiment: the data are already there.
Regards, Marcoen
Evgeny Eskenazi replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 18:14 GMT
Hello Marcoen,
This would be indeed very interesting to test your theory with astonomical data. As far as I remember, there have been discovered some antiparticles in the Earth radiation belt, with a hypothesis that the charged antimatter is caught by the Earh's magnetic field. I wonder if your theory could also explain the existense of this belt?
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 23:39 GMT
Evgeny,
Thanks for this suggestion. It is, however, impossible to answer your question here and now.
The radiation belt is a macroscopic phenomenon: it is quite an enterprise to explain that with a theory of the Planck scale. It might be an idea to investigate whether a concrete mathematical model of the theory (i.e. the EPT) is consistent with the radiation belt, that is, whether the model does not exclude the existence of the belt. That requires, however, that a model of the theory is at hand; currently this is not the case. So for the moment we have to shelve the idea, but it remains an interesting suggestion.
Regards, Marcoen
Sridattadev wrote on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 14:59 GMT
Dear Marcoen,
I am glad to see your essay and ideas on gravity being a repulsive force in the perspective of anti matter. Also I am glad to see a chemical engineer working in theoritical physics concepts, as I did my MS in chemical engineering as well from university of south western Louisiana but took to software engineering as a profession.
In the quest to understand the true nature of universe, I have realized that our conscience is the key to understanding this puzzle. Physical reality is the work of the universal soul, mind and body. S = BM^2. To be (matter) or not to be (antimatter) is the ongoin process of the cosmos, and is reflected in an individual being. We are the individual cosmic prototype.
For every action there is equal and opposite reaction, there is also inaction at the point of their interaction. It is this inaction (singualrity or coscience or soul) that is in all of us that causes all the actions and consequent reactions. Positive numbers on the number scale are like the matter particles, and negative numbers on the number scale are like antimatter particles. If we were to sum all the numbers from negative infinity to postitive infinity the sum would be absolute zero. The answer lies in zero, and hence zero divided by zero equals everything including nothing, which means the relativity we percieve in the physical universe is non existent or an illusion and the universe is just an absolute singularity.
Please see the essay
Conscience is the cosmological constant.Love,
Sridattadev.
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 21:27 GMT
Hi Sridattadev,
I indeed first studied chemistry but it required quite some additional study to be able to work in the foundations of physics. I have noticed that there are those who think that "a chemist" has no bussiness in theoretical physics, but I consider that nothing but pigeonholing: the fact that I once chose a chemistry education doesn't mean that I am confined to chemistry for the rest of my life. But I agree with them that a chemistry education alone does not provide enough background for a career in theoretical physics.
Now about your comment. I agree with you that an understanding of the true nature of the universe is intertwined with an understanding of conscience. Or to put it in other words: I sincerely believe that the fundamental questions of physics are intertwined with the mind-body problem in philosophy. My point of view is the same as that of the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead: a new ontology for physics means nothing if it doesn't provide new insight into the mind-body problem. I have investigated the implications of my Elementary Process Theory for the mind-body problem, but that is off topic here.
I have read your essay, but I must say that it raises some serious questions. For example, you write that "if 0 x 0 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 0 is also true". Aren't you going against (mathematical) field theory here? The expression "0/0 = 0" is just a notation for the expression "0 x 0
-1 = 0", where 0
-1 is the multiplicative reverse of the number 0 (the additive unit). That, however, does not exist: in field theory the number 0 has no multiplicative reverse. That is to say: there is no such thing as division by 0. So from that point of view, it is not true that 0/0 = 0.
Another point in your essay that I find difficult to understand is your equation on page 2, "s = bm
2". Is this a relation between numbers, or are the soul, the body and the mind substances (things)? If these are numbers, then the question is: isn't the concept of a number too simple to represent something complex as a soul? And if these are substances, then immediately the question comes to mind: don't you get in troubles with the dimensions? What is the body times the mind times the mind dimension-wise? These are just some of the questions that come to mind.
Regards, Marcoen
Sridattadev replied on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 21:16 GMT
Dear Marcoen,
Thanks for reading the essay and trying to understand what I am trying to convey. The point I am trying to make with 0/0 = 0 to infinity is that the division we percieve in relativity is non existent. To put in words "when nothing is divided by nothing you can get anything including nothing".
In the representation S=BM^2, 2 is not just an exponential number, it is the duality of our mind, to be or not to be the matter or body.
We can just know what the universe is, if we only know our self.
Love,
Sridattadev.
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 11:42 GMT
Hi Sridattadev,
I see that you give a very unusual interpretation to the expression S = BM
2. Usually M
2 is just the element that is produced by applying the binary operation multiplication to the elements M and M; in Polish notation M
2 = *(M, M). With all due respect, I think you give the expression a meaning that is not represented by the mathematics in the expression: you might want to think it over to use this expression to represent your idea on soul, body and mind. I would advise you to first develop the idea further and write it out in words. When it then is in its final stage, you could search for a suitable symbolic representation - if that is more preferable than a formulation in just words.
Best regards, Marcoen
Sridattadev replied on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 16:04 GMT
Dear Marcoen,
I purposefully chose this non mathematical representation of soul, mind and body, S=BM^2,so as to engrain this simple truth in the hearts of humanity, as this representation of singularity or soul is similar to the popular relativistic view of E=MC^2, which very well explains the duality of existence. Universal I in us gives meaning to everything. What is E, M and C but just alphabets and exponential 2 some abstraction until we assign them meaning. So are S, B and M just another set of alphabets to give meaning to our perception of the self.
There is absolutely nothing but thy self, everything emerges from thee.
Love,
Sridattadev.
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 21:28 GMT
Dear Sridattadev,
It is true that the equation e = mc
2 in itself says nothing about physical reality, but the "e", "m", and "c" in that equation are not just letters from the alphabet: the formula says that the real number e is identical to the product of the real numbers m and c
2, where c
2 is the product of the real number c with itself. That is, the formula e = mc
2 is an expression that has a distinct mathematical meaning because it is formulated in the framework of the real number field. This expression gets a physical meaning by interpreting the terms e, m and c as energy, mass and light speed.
The point is that your formula S = BM
2 is not formulated in the framework of any mathematical theory (like field theory), and from your interpretation it is clear that we have to view it as outside the framework of real numbers. But that makes the expression mathematically meaningless. So to give it a mathematical meaning, you have to specify -- in a way understandable for mathematicians -- what S, B, and M are mathematically, and what the operation multiplication means. Only then it becomes clear how this represents your idea on soul, body and mind.
Best regards, Marcoen
Sridattadev replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 17:47 GMT
Dear Marcoen,
That is where 0 = i = infinity comes into picture, mathematical representation of metaphysical truth about S=BM^2. You might continue to say that inverse mutliple of zero does not exist in the current mathematical field theory, we are the ones who put that limitation for ourself, then it is time to revisit the fundamentals of mathematics and change our underlying assumptions. The truth is inverse of nothing (0) is infact everything (infinity) and their multiple is singularity (i). There is only "i" in the entire cosmos and, zero = i = infinity.
Love,
Sridattadev
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Sandor Beckers wrote on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 08:12 GMT
Hi Marcoen,
Splendid stuff. You have my vote!
Goodluck and with kind regards,
Sándor
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 17:29 GMT
Hello Sándor,
Thanks for the comment!
Regards, Marcoen
Avtar Singh wrote on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 19:21 GMT
Dear Marcoen:
I enjoyed your nicely written essay describing the possible matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion or anti-gravity mechanism. However, in order to explain a sustainable antigravity mechanism, as in the cosmological constant, one must prove a sustainable amount of antimatter in the same amount as the classical matter observed in the universe. Since, such large amount of sustainable stable antimatter has not been seen, a sustained antigravity cannot be supported by the arguments made in the paper.
As described in my posted paper – “
From Absurd to Elegant Universe”, an alternative mechanism for antigravity is proposed based on the observed spontaneous decay of particles or mass-energy equivalence principle, wherein mass-energy transformation can be expressed in physical dynamical terms via a relativistic Gravity Nullification Model (GNM) based on the top-down conservation of the relativistic mass-energy-space-time continuum. GNM based antigravity driven universe expansion accurately predicts the observed universe accelerated expansion, dark energy or cosmological constant, and galactic star velocities without the concept of dark matter. It also predicts the dilation and creation of mass without any anti-matter and eliminates black hole singularity without the need for any super luminous inflation. The model also explains/predicts the inner workings of quantum mechanics and resolves paradoxes of the measurement problem, quantum gravity and time, and inconsistencies with relativity theory.
I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper.
Sincerely,
Avtar Singh
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 23:42 GMT
Hello Avtar,
Thanks for reading my essay and sharing your opinion about it.
My essay does indeed not argue in favor of an equal abundance of matter and antimatter: it purely deals with gravitational repulsion - the nature of the interaction between matter and antimatter does not depend on their relative abundance. It is not true, however, that the dark energy problem has necessarily to be solved by an antigravity mechanism that requires equal amounts of matter and antimatter.
The observed acceleration of the universe gives the idea that there is something that counters the effect of gravity, but that does not necessarily mean that this something is an antigravitational force at cosmic scale. Simply put, the approach that I take is that an aggregration of individual processes, which take place at Planck scale, leads to the formation of space: that is then the reason that the universe expands. So objects do not move away from each other because of some repulsive force, they merely appear to move away from each other because there is space formed inbetween them.
I have looked at your paper. To start with, I have a question about the main equation of your model. How do you get the value of the integral in formula (5)? The integral in (5) is, namely, syntactically incorrect: it lacks a variable of integration. If I assume that the value of integration is dr (and from the context that is likely), then the value of the integral becomes Gmm*(ln R - ln0). But this doesn't exist, so it cannot be the stated value 3Gm
2/5R. But this is an important equation, because you use that value 3Gm
2/5R in your master equation (6), on which your entire paper is based. So how did you get the value 3Gm
2/5R?? Furthermore, you make some strong claims; since you asked for my comments, I must say that I think that your model is mathematically too simple to back up some of those claims. Your model consists of a few equations in real calculus; yet you claim on page 9 that it gives a mechanistic description of the collapse of the wave function. This raises imediately a question: how can that be when the wave function is not a term of your theory (your theory only uses numbers, while the wave function is an element of a complex Hilbert space)? As I see it, you have an idea for a simple model for the developement of the universe as a whole, and perhaps you should focus you attention at that, that is, at showing that it gives good predictions for atronomical data.
Regards, Marcoen
Avtar Singh replied on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 18:53 GMT
Dear Marcoen:
Thanks for reading my paper and providing comments. Below are answers to your questions/comments:
The basic approach in the EPT – “.. an aggregation of individual processes, which take place at Planck scale, leads to the formation of space: that is then the reason that the universe expands. So objects do not move away from each other because of some repulsive force, they merely appear to move away from each other because there is space formed in between them.” needs to be validated against the observed universe expansion data from Supernova. Until then, the completeness or correctness of the EPT remains unsubstantiated.
You have misinterpreted the integral form of the Gravitation Potential Energy term -3Gm2/5R. The exact derivation is provided in my book, ref [15], and also excerpted in the attached PDF file herewith. Also, detailed model of the extended wave-particle model, wave-function collapse, Heisenberg uncertainty, and inner workings of quantum mechanics resolving its paradoxes such as the measurement problem, multiverses, antimatter, quantum gravity etc. are described in detail with complete mathematical derivations in Chapter 4 thru 7 (see attached Pdf for Contents of the book). Obviously, you have not have had a chance to read these detailed model descriptions and hence, prematurely labeled them too simplistic based on a quick reading the abbreviated (11 pages) paper only.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
attachments:
Gravitation_Potential_Drivation__Excerpts_from_my_book.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 22:15 GMT
Dear Avatar,
You are correct in your assessment that a necessary condition for a claim of correctness of the EPT is that the empirical data about the expansion of the universe have to be explained on the basis of the EPT. This will be the topic of my postdoc research project.
Then about your formula. In your essay, the terms m and m* in equation (5) are not defined. You refer to figure 2, but - with all due respect - a figure is an illustration, not a definition. But alas, let us consider this issue solved by your additional information. Another question then arises, however. In the document that was attached to your last post, the factor r in formula (5.14) is the distance between two separated masses M and m. But in figure 2 in your essay, m and m* seem to be adjacent, not separated. Isn't the distance r between them then not 0, as in r = 0? In other words: how do you get from that equation (5.14) to equation (5) in your essay? Is in both cases the interpretation of r the same? I hope you can elaborate on this.
With best regards, Marcoen
Avtar Singh replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 21:47 GMT
Dear Marcoen:
Thanks for your reply. Below are answers to your questions:
Mass m in my equation is the mass ( ) contained inside the sphere of radius r and m* is the mass ( ) within the spherical annulus shell of thickness dr at radius r. Since the center of gravity for mass m is at the center (r=0) and spherical shell mass m* is located at radius r, the distance between these two masses is r. I hope that clarifies the derivation of the gravity term in the equation and now you can follow the derivation from eqn. (5.14) to equation (5) in the posted essay.
I hope that clarifies your question; if not please ask more questions.
Best Regards
Avtar
Please see attached pdf file for missing formulas in the above post.
attachments:
Response_3_to_Marcoen_JTF_Cabbolet_73112.pdf
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Daniel L Burnstein wrote on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 04:07 GMT
Hi Marcoen,
In answer to your questions
"Am I correct that you obtain a quantum-theoretical formulation of the physics of gravitational repulsion from just two assumptions?" and "Are your two assumptions (or axioms) all of the assumptions of the entire theory, or are these assumptions that are added to the assumptions of the quantum framework?"
Yes, I do get gravitational repulsion from only two basic assumptions or axioms. The entire theory is directly derived from only two axioms. You can get an idea how this is achieve from my entry in the FQXi contest titled "Questioning the Assumption that Space is Continuous."
And should you want to see the entire framework, I would be happy to direct you to my introduction to the subject; the first part of which is only 120 pages.
You work and mine would certainly provide a basis for some interesting discussions, to say the least.
Daniel
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 17:47 GMT
Dear Daniel,
Having looked at your essay, I see that we share the idea that gravitation can be repulsive and that space is not fundamentally continuous. Our views on what underlies all that are, however, radically different. I do not believe that space is continuous, but neither do I believe that it is discrete. In my upcoming postdoc project I intend to develop the (mathematical) notion of a semi-continuum: this is a (semi-topologiocal) space that at macroscopic space has some properties of a continuum, but the continuum structure breaks down at small scale (e.g. at Planck level).
I have some questions about your claim that your system rests on only two axioms from which everything else follows. I will focus at three things, one logics-related, one mathematics-related, and one physics-related:
1) The definition on page 1 of the notion "fundamental" is a so-called if-statement, that is, a statement of the form
This has a consequence: if an object is fundamental, then it does not follow from the definition that it is invariant.
The point is, namely, that the reasoning
is known to be not logically valid.
On page 2 you write that "Per our definition of what is fundamental, preons(-) and preons(+) never change." This statement is, thus, incorrect from the point of view of formal logics: with your definition, something can be fundamental but not invariant. Did you perhaps have an if-and-only-if-statement in mind when you formulated your definition of the concept "fundamental"?
2) Furthermore, your axiom about the discreteness of space is merely about the qualitative composition of your quantum-geometrical space: apart from the fact that there is no definition of the concept "distance", by no means it follows directly from this axiom that there is a smallest possible distance, as you claim on page 1 just below the axiom. The axiom does not exclude that there are infinitely many preons(-) located at different distances from each other: there might be a positive distance between any two preons(-), but a smallest possible distance has not necessarily to exist. That is to say: isn't the statement that there is a smallest possible distance an extra assumption (axiom) in your theory?
3) In your axiom of the discreteness of space, you mention that there is a repulsive force between preons(-). Yet on page 2 you write that the preons(-) are static: they don't move. Apart from the fact that the notion "force" is not defined in your framework, the question rises: how does the repulsive force manifests itself? How can we prove that it exists at all?
I would appreciate it if you could elaborate specifically on these three topics.
With best regards, Marcoen
Daniel L Burnstein replied on Jul. 26, 2012 @ 14:42 GMT
Hi Marcoen,
Yours are valid questions and show that perhaps, some clarifications are needed. See numbered answers corresponding to your questions below.
1) Yes, it is and if and only if reflexive. It is fundamental if it is absolutely invariant and if it is absolutely invariant, it is fundamental.
2) Not really. One has to remember how distance is defined. Distance is not what exists between any two preons(-). That would imply that there may be space between preons(-) when, as explained, there exist nothing between preons(-) but the n-gravity field that keeps them apart.
Distance between any two preons(-) is defined as the number of preonic leaps it takes for a preons(+) to move from one to the other. This definition of distance is a consequence of the axioms that define preons(-) and preons(+). Since it can be derived from the, the notion of distance is a theorem.
3) For preons(+) to move, they would need to move through space, hence, be able to transitorily couple with other preons(-) along their path. They can’t do that since by definition, they carry n-gravity charges which keeps them apart. Since there is nothing between preons(-) except the n-gravity field, there isn’t even space (preons(-) are space), there is no way for them to move. Thus they are virtually static. Therefore, space, according to the model I propose, has a definite structure. Though this is not absolutely correct, quantum-geometrical space may be understood as an absolute frame of reference.
Since quantum-geometrical space and matter are defined as being particles and since they are defined as absolutely invariant, then preons cannot be transformed, created or destroyed. They must then obey the law of conservation. Since space is made of preons(-), it must then be finite. By definition, a preon(+) an only transitorily couple with one preon(-). Hence, there cannot be an infinite number of preons(-) that can occupy any regions of quantum-geometrical space. And since space is not infinitesimal, that is, it does not contain an infinite number of preons(+), their can’t be an infinite number of preons(+) in any given region of quantum-geometrical space.
I hope that helps clarity the subject. As I mentioned, my essay is taken from a much larger work, the first volume of which is available
here
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 21:01 GMT
Hello Daniel,
I like the enthousiasm with which you participate in the discussion on the foundations of physics.
That being said, I have looked at your larger work to which you refer in the above post. I see that you have some outspoken ideas, but - with all due respect - the system that you present is not a formal axiomatic system that allows rigorous proofs.
The derivations that you present are not based on logical schemes: yours are informal Toulmin schemes. That means that the argumentation contains tacit assumptions that are not implied by the premises. An example is your concept of distance: on p. 76 you call this a corollary but there is no way that this concept can be formally deduced from your set of axioms. In addition, the definition seems ambiguous. Let us assume that the distance between two preons(-) is identical to the number of preon leaps between them. What if there are several trajectories to get from one preon(-) to another, whereby these trajectories differ in the number of leaps? Then according to your definition, there are several different distances between these two preons(-).
Furthermore, you seem to have troubles in separating object level from metalevel. Your axioms 1 - 11 are at object level, but axiom 12 is at metalevel. This axiom 12 is a proposition that you have to prove starting from the axioms at object level.
But even apart from the way how your ideas are presented, the ideas themselves raise questions. You haven´t really answered my third question in my previous post: how can we detect the repulsive force between preons(-)? In other words: what is the difference between assuming that there is such a force, and simply assuming that space is discrete and made up of static particles but without the additional assumption that there is some force active between the constituents of space?
If you really want to make your point about a universe consisting of preons(-) and preons(+), then my advice would be that you develop a publishable representation of your theory in symbolic logic.
With best regards, Marcoen
Daniel L Burnstein replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 17:36 GMT
Hi, Marcoen
In order not to distract from discussions relevant to your excellent essay, I have transported to my discussion page the discussion you initiated about the views I express in my own essay. I will reply to your last comments shortly.
I do have some questions pertaining to your essay which I will post here after I read it again.
Daniel
report post as inappropriate
Daniel L Burnstein replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 14:22 GMT
Hi Marcoen,
I posted my reply to your last comment in my essay's tread.
My questions about your essay to follow shortly.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Hyoyoung Choi wrote on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 03:19 GMT
Dear Marcoen,
I have a similar model on antigravity or repulsive gravity. In generally, the concept of negative mass(energy) has two models.
Model-1 is
Inertial mass > 0, (Active and Passive) Gravitational mass < 0.
The principle of equivalence is not valid. Your model is a model-1.
Model-2 is
Inertial mass < 0, (Active and Passive) Gravitational mass < 0.
The principle of equivalence is valid. My model is a model-2.
In my article, I show that negative mass provides a qualitative explanation for dark matter and dark energy.
Please view to my article and simulation video.
Article topic 1309Computer Simulation on negative massHave a good time!
---Hyoyoung Choi
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 23:59 GMT
Hello Hyoyoung Choi,
Thank you for reading my essay.
You use the term similar for our ideas, but in the framework of my theory there is no such thing as negative inertial mass: if this would be detected, then my theory would have to be discarded.
You may be able to develop a mathematically consistent framework in which negative inertial mass is possible. But it raises some serious questions from a physical point of view. For example, if one would apply contact forces to a body with negative inertial mass (assuming there is such a thing in a world where also positive inertial mass exists). If I would push such a body away from me, it would accelerate towards me, or not? Doesn't this sound so implausible that we can dismiss the idea of negative inertial mass? I would be interested in your thoughts about this.
In your essay you write that "negative mass has repulsive effects towards each other so it cannot form any structure". However, two bodies with negative inertial mass and like electrical charges would attract each other: the Coulomb force on the first charged particle, exerted by the second equally charged particle, is directed away from the second particle, so the first particle would accelerate towards the second because of its negative inertial mass. So why would atomic structures (e.g. hydrogen-like) be impossible in a universe where negative inertial mass exists? Also, objects with negative inertial mass and negative gravitational mass would be attracted gravitationally towards objects with positive gravitational mass. If small particles with negative inertial mass would exist everywhere in the universe, wouldn't we then observe a constant incoming flow of these particles on earth?
That brings me to another question: how can we in principle detect a particle with negative inertial mass? In other words: how can we prove its existence?
I myself do not believe in the existence of objects with negative mass, but the thoughts about it are interesting!
With best regards, Marcoen
Hyoyoung Choi replied on Jul. 26, 2012 @ 07:42 GMT
Dear Marcoen,
Thank you for your reply.
I am sorry. I apologize for my poor English.
=========
For example, if one would apply contact forces to a body with negative inertial mass (assuming there is such a thing in a world where also positive inertial mass exists). If I would push such a body away from me, it would accelerate towards me, or not? Doesn't this sound so...
view entire post
Dear Marcoen,
Thank you for your reply.
I am sorry. I apologize for my poor English.
=========
For example, if one would apply contact forces to a body with negative inertial mass (assuming there is such a thing in a world where also positive inertial mass exists). If I would push such a body away from me, it would accelerate towards me, or not? Doesn't this sound so implausible that we can dismiss the idea of negative inertial mass? I would be interested in your thoughts about this.
=========
For gravity, there is the influence of attractive force between objects with the same signs, but it does not come into existence, when applying this to electromagnetic force as it is. Charges with the same signs exchange repulsive force with each other, although this phenomenon is very weird, considering the case of gravity.
Most of people have strong aversion of negative mass, but no law of physics says there is only positive mass in nature.
I think that implausible phenomena in nature are phenomena against physical laws such as the law of conservation of energy or momentum, not our thoughts.
We are necessary to watch carefully the fact that sort of physical laws such as law of energy conservation or law of conservation of momentum do not deny negative mass.
========
In your essay you write that "negative mass has repulsive effects towards each other so it cannot form any structure". ~
========
As examined the equation of motion for negative mass, it is marked in form of F = -ma(m > 0), when attraction is applied together with nuclear force(when usually nuclear force is attraction, but has the form of repulsive core), and assuming nuclear force has the form of F = -Q(r) r^, Q(r) is the function of distance r, thus nuclear force is in the form of attraction worked in the direction of - r^. Because they form a binding structure together, regardless of the form of force~
Here, for the force worked on negative mass m,
F = - ma = - Q(r) r^
a = +(Q(r)/m) r^
The term of acceleration is positive, so the effect of increasing distance r, namely repulsive effect appears. This means that negative mass hard to form the structure like atom(massive nucleon, baryon, particle consists of multi elementary particle), because nuclear force has not binding negative mass when it is applied to negative mass. Also, gravity has not binding negative mass (repulsive).
We have to open up a lot of possibilities about negative mass(energy) and also, consider the possibility that negative mass does not make electromagnetic interaction.
In a particular case, negative mass can form the structure such as atoms, but in general, it seems it is difficult for it to form a large-scale structure like stars or galaxies.
=========
If small particles with negative inertial mass would exist everywhere in the universe, would not we then observe a constant incoming flow of these particles on earth?
=========
In my article,
If negative mass and positive mass were came into being together at the beginning of universe, since positive mass has attractive effects with each other, so it forms stars and galaxy. In addition, negative mass has repulsive effects towards each other so it cannot form any structure and may spread out almost uniformly across the whole area of universe.
Therefore, positive masses and negative masses are completely offset in the whole universe, but there is a local area where positive masses exist more than negative masses.
Owing to the effect of negative mass and positive mass, negative mass disappears near massive positive mass structures (such as the galaxy and galaxy clusters, etc.) after meeting positive mass. However, negative mass, which came into existence at the beginning of universe, can still exist in a vacuum state outside of general galaxy.
The current structure of the galaxy is a structure that survived in the pair-annihilation of positive mass and negative mass and, since negative mass existed outside of this galaxy structure, therefore it has not been observed at the Earth.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Hyoyoung Choi replied on Jul. 26, 2012 @ 08:00 GMT
========
how can we in principle detect a particle with negative inertial mass? In other words: how can we prove its existence?
========
1. Theoretical calculation
After making new Friedmann eq., on the assumption that negative mass and positive mass coexist, we have to explain dark matters and dark energy using it, predict new phenomena and compare them with one...
view entire post
========
how can we in principle detect a particle with negative inertial mass? In other words: how can we prove its existence?
========
1. Theoretical calculation
After making new Friedmann eq., on the assumption that negative mass and positive mass coexist, we have to explain dark matters and dark energy using it, predict new phenomena and compare them with one another.
Dark matter and dark energy come from one origin!
"Pair creation model of negative mass(energy) and positive mass(energy)" insists that dark matter is not different from dark energy each other, dark matter is the effect of centripetal force by negative mass out of galaxy, and dark energy is that positive gravitational potential term in total potential energy.
"Pair creation model of negative mass and positive mass" insists that dark energy is a gravitational potential energy(with positive value) between negative mass and positive mass.
As a matter of fact, through numerical calculation using a computer, the distribution having a similar value to the predicted rate of WMAP was revealed.( Refer to 6~7P)
We get a result at almost zero energy state.
(Zero rest mass energy)
Matter (U_posiposi) : -83.2 (Ratio:1)
Dark Matter (U_neganega) : -459.6 (Ratio:5.52)
Dark Energy (U_negaposi) : 1286.9 (Ratio : 15.46)
2. Computer simulation
1) Big bang simulation
We set up each model from the birth of universe to the present, and calculated GPE using computer simulation in each level.
As a result, we could verify that "pair creation model of negative mass and positive mass" explains inflation of the early universe and decelerating expansion, and present accelerating expansion in time series.
This simulation is showing incredible results.
It not only explains the total energy of the universe, flatness, and the essence (Total zero energy, pair creation of negative energy and positive energy) of the process of birth of the universe, but it explains inflation, decelerating expansion in the early stage, accelerating expansion(dark energy) in the late stage, and dark matter through the only term, negative energy. Moreover, this negative energy is one that is essentially required by the law of energy conservation.
- The Change of Gravitational Potential Energy and Dark Energy in the Zero Energy Universe :
http://vixra.org/abs/1110.0019 - Dark energy - Accelerating expansion of distant galaxy due to negative mass :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71nMvwUhHwE - Inflation, accelerating expansion with pair creation of negative and positive mass :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRUqQM2FfNU Therefore, a larger-scale, precise experiment is needed.
2) Bullet cluster simulation
Have a nice day!
---Hyoyoung Choi
p.s.: Your question contains a universal question about negative mass. Therefore, I would like to leave the opinions that I exchanged with you in the comment box of my article, unless you oppose it.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 19:24 GMT
Dear Hyoyoung Choi,
It's OK to continue this discussion on the site of your essay.
I'll post my answer to your reply - if any - as soon as possible.
With best regards, Marcoen
hide replies
Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 17:13 GMT
Marcoen
Very interesting and original essay and theory. I'm not entirely clear if this may be thought of in terms of the gravitational force replicating the repulsive element of the strong nuclear force. Or the latter balancing the former.
My essay pulls up at discussion of this as it was already too desne, but I hope you'll give your views on it anyway, and I'd comment you following Vladimir Tamari's web link including work in a similar area.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 19:59 GMT
Hello Peter,
My essay focusses purely on gravitation as the predominant force. In other words, my essay focusses on a situation in which the strong nuclear interaction plays no role. The main finding of my research, however, applies to all interactions - although that is yet to be proven.
I started looking for fundamental principles that would allow a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion; during the research it turned out, however, that generalized principles could be formulated that apply regardless which interaction is predominant. That is to say: what I found in my PhD research was that if a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion is a fact of nature, then all individual processes are essentially the same. So it doesnt´t matter whether we consider a gravitational interaction or a strong nuclear interaction or an electromagnetic interaction of a microsystem: the individual process in which this interaction takes place is in principle the same. My theory, the Elementary Process Theory (EPT), is a collection of formulas expressing what happens in the indivudual processes. In my paper in Annalen der Physik I have demonstrated that a variety of observed phenomena can be described in the formal language (and with the physical principles) of the EPT. The current essay is more or less a prequel of this Annalen paper: it zooms in on the first considerations in the development of the EPT. These are not dealt with in the Annalen paper, although there is some overlap.
I will give a responds to your essay as soon as time allows.
With best regards, Marcoen
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 20:53 GMT
Hi Marcoen. While I applaude your [relatively] broad-minded approach, you will not find a fundamental and true unification of physics. Here is the clear proof of this.
Fundamentally, inertia and gravity both involve balanced attraction and repulsion.
The key is, at bottom, to establish space that is in between (and in the middle of) visible, invisible, and not visible space -- DREAMS DO THIS. You don't see from the ground or from the black space of the eye/body.(This has remarkable similarities with the electromagnetic spectrum.)
Inertia and gravity have to be balanced and equivalent (both at half strength force/energy); and the fact that gravity cannot be shielded weighs in too. Instantaneity must be fundamentally accounted for, and there you have it. Dreams do all of this. They are our growth and our becoming other than we are. FACT!
You physicists ignore the physics of the body. See the black space of the eye? That is basically [full] inertia. The ground is full gravity, isn't it? GRAVITY CANNOT BE SHIELDED. Gravity begins at the top of the head because the space there is invisible IN KEEPING WITH THE FACT that vision ALSO begins invisibly in the sye/body. (Dreams are a linked center of body experience too.)
Gravity is key to distance in/of space.
Seen and felt are unified in dreams. This is your final and ultimate understanding of physics in rough outline -- BUT I HAVE MUCH, MUCH MORE.
Let's start telling truth in physics FQXi.org.
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 22:44 GMT
Hello Frank,
Thank you for commenting on my essay.
You wrote that I will not find a "unification of physics", but what do you mean by a "unification of physics"? Could you be more specific?
Regards, Marcoen
Anonymous wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 21:38 GMT
Marcoen
Well written hypothesis, my question to you is matter and antimatter falls down how does exactly your hypothesis handle that?
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 22:12 GMT
Hello,
You wrote "matter and antimatter falls down".
Can you briefly specify what you mean by that?
Do you perhaps mean that matter and antimatter fall down on earth?
Regards, Marcoen
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 11:55 GMT
Let's assume that you meant that matter and antimatter both fall down on earth; please say so when you meant something else.
Before answering your question, I would then have to say that it is true that the overwhelming majority of physicists believes that antimatter falls down on earth just like "ordinary" matter, but this is a believe: it is not something that is known. Currently, it is not known whether antimatter falls down on earth, or up. The AEGIS project at CERN is aimed to establish which one of these is the case.
Now to answer your question: if the AEGIS project would establish (measure) that antimatter falls down on earth, then my theory would have to be discarded - or more precisely: it would have to be discarded as developed from a falsehood. In that case, the theory mathematically describes a universe which has no relation with the physical universe we live in.
Best regards, Marcoen
Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 15:45 GMT
Dear Mr Marcoen,
Human urge to understand all possible aspects of nature is clearly seen in your essay.
Intuition, Speculation & Abstraction plays an important role in advancement of human knowledge. As Pico Physicist I have speculated as well on the topics of matter, antimatter, gravitation. I give below my understanding as a Pico Physicist of the same;
Gravitational Repulsion: Gravitation is a phenomenon resulting from Non-Konservation of space. The consumption of space by contained Knergy. Conventional energy is a measure of the rate of consumption of space. With this reading of reason for existence of phenomenon of gravitation only attraction is envisaged between objects. Existence of gravitational repulsion can be speculated based on non-availability of space ready to replace consumed space. The affinity of space to possess Knergy helps in making space available to replace, but due to geometrical reasons it has a limiting value. This limiting value explains the non-existence of elements with higher atomic number. Possibly, it is at the root of some astronomical observations - that forbids collapse of matter into a point object.
However, the speculation in PicoPhysics still does not foresee repulsion between objects possessing energy.
Matter & Antimatter is relative to each other, and both are Space contained Knergy (
Five Dimensions of universe ) identities. When they combine, matter as we know (with inertial property) is lost and Knergy is set free in natural unit objects (Photons). Thus matter and anti-matter are dealt differently than gravitation in PicoPhysics. As a Pico physicist I speculate the similar situation prevailed in the recent experiment that resulted in confirmation of existence of Higgs-Bosons to mainstream physicists. So the annihilation is not necessarily an interaction between matter and anti-matter, it can occur as a multi-step process in high energy interactions.
So, In PicoPhysics, we have similar ideas, but none leads to conclusion of observing repulsion between objects as a result of gravitation.
Thanks and Best Regards,
Vijay Gupta
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 21:08 GMT
Hello Vijay,
Thanks for reading my essay and sharing your views.
I agree with you that speculation plays an important role in the advancement of human knowledge; in general I think science progresses by testing rigorous speculation.
In your post you wrote about the confirmation of the existence of the Higgs-boson. I have seen the press conference of CERN where they made that claim that they have observed a new boson. That, however, is an overstatement. The point is, namely, that one cannot possibly observe a boson (or a fermion, for that matter). One can at most observe properties of microsystems: the microsystem itself cannot be observed. In other words: CERN can at most claim that they have observed a new pattern in the measurement outcome, and that the Higgs mechanism may explain this pattern. They haven't convinced me so far.
About your own theory, you write that your picophysics does not foresee any repulsion between objects possessing energy. I would like to ask you a question: if gravitational repulsion were observed, then what does that mean for your theory?
Best regards, Marcoen
Jeroen wrote on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 07:45 GMT
Hi Marcoen,
I know the extremely difficult path you had to travel to get the attention for the scientific work you produced. The current scientific paradigms do not tolerate criticism and well formulated, sound new approaches to the embarrassingly obvious impcompatibity of quantum physics and the general theory of relativity do not receive a warm welcome.
Science seem to have lost its root cause and purpose: how does the world really work ? This paper tries to answer that, still free of incompatibility of known experimental data, unlike the almost sacred excepted theories.
Your essay eloquently describes in layman's terms the beauty of the theory. Even more, you clearly stress multiple times which experiment would falsify your theory. If he could, Karl Popper would give you a standing ovation.
I wonder how many scientific papers are written like this nowadays, especially in the field of Physics. therefore this theory and its approach should be applauded by the whole community. A+ !
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 10:53 GMT
Hello Jeroen,
Yes, I had a few bumps on the road. And yes, these are difficult times for acadmic freedom in physics. But this hostility towards new ideas is a problem of all times, and one of science in general (not just physics). Let me illustrate that with two striking examples. The first is the moment when the greatest philosopher in the history of the Netherlands, Spinoza, presented his ideas: it then became simply a new genre in literature to write a refutation of Spinoza. Interestingly, this initial reaction has accomplished the opposite, in the sense that it can be seen as experimental support for Spinoza´s Ethics (which they tried to refute). And if you go back somewhat further in time, a second example can be found in the Bible: apart from the discussion about the merit of Jezus' teachings, the Bible gives an excellent description of how the rulers of that time reacted to a new idea.
Motivated by my own experience, I have done some research into this - the sociology of science is practically as interesting as science itself. What you then see is that throughout history the same tactics are used when new ideas are attacked. That is to say: we talk of "modern" science, but sociologically the community hasn't evolved at all - these days new ideas are attacked with the same unethical methods as two millenia ago. It was very kind of you to write that my theory should be applauded by the whole community, but I cannot imagine that anyone who has has acquired this purely pragmatic attitude towards physics - and I do mean this "shut-up-and-calculate!"-attitude - will ever support anything that deviates from quantum theory. You mentioned Popper: he described this community as a "cult of narrowness", and unfortunately I have to agree. But luckily they do not form the entire physics community, so I trust that I get the possibility to do further research in this direction.
Best regards, Marcoen
Jeroen replied on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 11:41 GMT
We all still wait on the day that mankind takes a step forward by each scientist taking a step back and reflect on whether he seeks the truth, or personal short-term glory.
I hope that at least some will allow you a windows of opportunity to further test and enhance your theories. That is true science.
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 10:07 GMT
Jeroen,
I see that we are on the same line here. I'm all for a more self-reflective attitude in science, and I'm not the only one. The ideal is that every student, who has finished his university education, has acquired such a self-reflective attitude. Now there are universities where this is the case, but to reach this ideal on a global scale would require a worldwide change in the university curriculum, opposite to the general trend of ever narrowing down the education to the bare minimum required for working within some prevailing paradigm. Therefore I don't see it happen any time soon on a worldwide scale. What is needed is an event (a scandal perhaps) that makes it plain for all to see that this narrowing down the curriculum for decades in a row was not such a good idea: maybe then something changes. Untill then, we're stuck in the current situation where you have to expect that those who review your work simply lack the basic skills to do anything but comment on it from their own personal perspective.
Best regards, Marcoen
Joy Christian replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 15:22 GMT
Hello Marcoen,
I sympathize with your struggle against the prevailing opinion in science and admire your courage for persisting and fighting against the opposition for so long. I noticed that in this context you have written about the subject of "scientific misconduct to the disadvantage of others" (cf. the attached paper). I have linked your paper in another blog (the so-called "Disproof" blog). I found your paper on the Internet, so I presume you would not mind my linking it here on these pages.
Unfortunately I too have been a victim of scientific misconduct of the kind you talk about in your paper. Some people (including a couple of FQXi members) have chosen to attack my work (as well as me personally) rather than actually read and understand what I have written. They have made patently false claims about my work in public without reading a single line of it, and create aggressively negative blogs about it with intentions to defame me, discredit my work, and starve my research of all financial and academic support.
Well, you seem to know all about such shameful tactics of the dogmatic, unimaginative, and closed-minded. I just wanted to take my hats off to you for your courageous struggle against them.
With best wishes for the essay contest,
Joy Christian
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 23:35 GMT
Hello Joy,
I indeed have written an essay on scientific misconduct; it is currently under review at an ethics journal. I sincerely think the topic needs to be addressed by the community: I believe - and I'm not the only one - that the ethical decay in science has reached such proportions that there is absolutely no point in continuing the present system any further.
I do have fierce opposition, but I also have (very strong) support, both public and behind the scenes. All the actions of those who oppose me have thus far had the opposite effect. But it does take time for that opposite effect to take place, so I did loose time. So all in all, the only "success" of my adversaries is that they have slowed down my research a little bit. As I see it, the only thing that is more pathetic than censorship in science is failed censorship - that's what we are talking about here. I have nothing but contempt for those involved.
I don't know your situation, but you those that attack you without having read your material are in any case pseudoskeptics (as meant by Truzzi). This is the core of the present problem. I don't agree with their tactics: if someone writes a paper that doesn't meet the standard of scientific quality, then this can be pointed out with a soft voice but still with rigor - there is no need to scoff at the author. And if the quality is all right, then there should be room for mistakes: it must be possible to question an old axiom or theorem, without it having consequences for one's career if the old axiom/theorem turns out to hold after all. I can assure you of one thing: pseudoskeptics have themselves never contributed anything to the foundations of physics. You might want to read Brian Martin's paper "advice for the dissident scholar". My general advice would be this: do not ever have respect for those, who have no respect for you!
Best regards, Marcoen
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 11:04 GMT
The respect merits itself Marcoen, the rest is vain.In fact a real universalist respects always a real universalist. The others are puppets of the system. In suit and money. The discriminations are the torchs of pseudo-thinkers, vanitious, jealous and envious. I fact they are limited in their universality, so they are simply stupids.
In fact they are n,ot scientists !!!
Let's pray so for these poor souls, poor minds. They insist for what ? for this money dear universalists. They do not utilize the money like an universal tool, no they use it for their pleasures of lifes and opulences. In fact they decrease the velocity of evolution instead of optimize it. If this planet is chaotic, it is due to this simple evidence. The stupidity is the sister of envious people. We cannot utilize the money in a chaotic road, the harmony is the secret in all centers of initerest.
The respect is natural between the real generalists and the real universalists.
On the other side,the rational critic is logic in front of stupidities !
Marcoen, the sciences community is sick. If already the universality is not a main parameter of these scientific high spheres. Where are we going?
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Eric Stanley Reiter wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 03:39 GMT
I like that you have rejected QM and explored Schroedinger's real matter wave. I have done similarly, but developed the concept. More importantly, I have real experiments to show the nature of the matter wave, and also the particle-like nature of light. The theory I developed identifies inertial mass as the envelope of psi. The inner psi wave within an envelope, at opposite phase is taken as the identity of antimatter. The model lets you see how the psi wave cancels while modulating its envelope to convert to gamma-rays in pair annihilation. It is good that you have attempted to resolve the wave-particle paradox in your quest to understand gravity, but you should see how I have handled the wave-particle problem with experiments that defy predictions of QM. If you need to show the flaw of QM to advance your theory, you should see how I have defied QM. These seem to be the only experiments that challenge QM:
A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory I do not think antimatter gravity would push, and I think your team would be better off reformulating QM and gravity theory from the demonstrations and points made in my essay before going through all the trouble to see if antimatter falls up.
Thank you, Eric Reiter
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 11:44 GMT
Hi Eric,
Thanks for reading my essay and proposing suggestions for another line of research.
For now I'll continue the current line of research. If, however, the AEGIS collaboration demonstrates that there is no matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion, then this research program has to be terminated. Then the research group has to be dissolved and I'll have to consider other options - if I at all would like to stay in academic circles, that is. Research aimed at a quantum theory of gravitation, as you suggested, is then one of the options.
I believe that nature is fundamentally discrete, which excludes continuous absorption. However, loading theory, which you mentioned in your essay, is interesting. Perhaps loading theory, or a form thereof, plays a role in radioactivity. A nucleus then gradually absorps energy from its surroundings (which can happen in discrete steps) and when a treshold is reached it disintegrates. But this is just speculation.
About your experiment: can't you get some university interested in reproducing the results? If you can really produce a result that contradicts quantum theory on the premises of a university, then this should be publishable in a letter journal. You have to do some politics too: my advice is to publish it as a falsification of quantum theory, not as a confirmation of loading theory. Good luck!
Best regards, Marcoen
John A. Macken, wrote on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 18:54 GMT
Marcoen,
I am going to make the argument that a mass exhibiting anti gravity cannot exist because it would then be possible to do an experiment that violated the conservation of momentum. Gravitational waves generated by ordinary matter are quadrupole waves in spacetime which distort a spherical volume so that it becomes an oscillating ellipsoid. One transverse dimension elongates while the orthogonal transverse dimension contracts and vice versa. Most important, there is no displacement of the center of mass of an object when a quadrupole gravitational wave passes.
If antimatter exhibited antigravity, then it would be hypothetically possible to generate a "dipole gravitational wave". A dipole gravitational wave could be made by oscillating an antimatter mass coupled to an ordinary matter mass. A dipole gravitational wave would affect the rate of time and cause the center of mass of objects to undergo an oscillating displacement as the wave passed the object. This is a violation of the conservation of momentum unless the displacement is so small that it is allowed by the uncertainty principle. Given a large enough mass exhibiting antigravity, it would be possible to do an experiment that violated the conservation of momentum by producing a macroscopic displacement of the center of mass of a massive object. Therefore, it is argued that nothing, even antimatter, can exhibit antigravity.
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 18:06 GMT
Hello John,
Thanks for commenting on my essay.
I have seen quite some theoretical arguments against a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion, but your argument is new for me. Clearly, your argument is formulated within the paradigm of General Relativity (GR); within this paradigm there is already an argument against said repulsion, namely the equivalence principle. But let's look at your argument now.
First of all, your argument uses the notion of a gravitational wave. You write that "gravitational waves generated by ordinary matter are quadrupole waves in spacetime which distort a spherical volume so that it becomes an oscillating ellipsoid." I know the picture. Theoretically this may be so, but there is not a shred of evidence that this happens in the real world. That is to say: there is no empirical proof for the existence of gravitational waves as described by GR. In other words: this part of your argument is a theoretical assumption (which doesn't mean that it is bad!).
Second, you state that in case of a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion, it is possible to create a special gravitational wave that you call a "dipole gravitational wave". But is that so? This part of your argument requires further clarification. Apart from the fact that you "derive" a phenomenon by adding an object to GR that can not possibly exist in that paradigm, you have to describe this phenomenon, the dipole gravitational wave, more precisely. In the language of GR, in the case of a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion, an accelerating body of antimatter would produce a gravitational wave analoguous to a decelerating body of matter. Perhaps the dipole wave can then also be produced by two bodies of matter???
Third, you state that a dipole gravitational wave can cause a violation of the law of conservation of momentum, if the masses causing the wave are large enough. Your post does not adequately describe why this is the case: you would have to elaborate on that. Merely stating that this is the case is not enough. The burden of proof lies with you: you have to give a full proof of this step of your reasoning.
Summarizing, your argument has some shortcomings. But these might be repairable. If you can develop your argument into a full proof, then you might want to publish this in a physics journal as a new theoretical argument against gravitational repulsion. As your argument leans heavily on the notion of a gravitational wave, it might in the end turn out that a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion and gravitational waves as described by GR are mutually exclusive, so that observation of the one is a refutation of the other. Who knows? In the theory that I envision, such gravitational waves, i.e. the ones occuring in the framework of GR, do not exist. An accelerating body - in so far as we can speak of that in the context of stepwise motion - does influence the curvature of space, but the phenomenon is nonlocal.
Best regards, Marcoen
Jeff Baugher wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 16:56 GMT
Hi Marcoen,
My essay
here also concludes that gravity is better thought of as repulsive than attractive, although through a mathematical argument concerning the Einstein tensor. I have not yet considered repercussions of anti-matter, although I think our thought processes may be similar.
A simple way of looking at my argument states that G
uv represents attractive gravity, and of course is the correct tensor in GR for when R
uv=0. If the condition on R
uv is not relaxed, then it is not mathematically possible to add a multiple of the metric g
uv to the Einstein tensor. It is, however, just as equivalent to instead let G
uv=Omega g
uv-L
uv. Thus G
uv represents and equates to attractive gravity, however if we need a cosmological constant then the equation must be Omega g
uv-L
uv so that the condition R
uv=0 still holds. This is a classical gauge theory equivalence to repulsive gravity. Any comments you have would be appreciated.
Regards,
Jeff Baugher
report post as inappropriate
Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 17:24 GMT
Marcoen,
There are many parallels between your essay and mine. Please take a look at the two dimensional gradient plots in how to construct a Newtonian gradient that is equivalently attractive or repulsive.
I agree with your Fig. 2, in that if we only view a "particle" in its own rest frame we are seeing a smeared out wavefunction that has collapsed into what is perceived as a stable symmetric "particle". Thus no observation of the wave nature that would be in between your spheres that you show.
Regards,
Jeff
report post as inappropriate
Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 17:43 GMT
Marcoen,
One more thought on your Fig. 2. Instead of using spheres, I may adopt your picture to show a spherical "hole", in that for the hole to travel it has a wave nature in between. This is akin to GS Sandhu's traveling wave packets of stress.
Let me know if it is ok to continue this discussion on your thread or if you would prefer me to use my own.
Regards,
Jeff Baugher
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 17:54 GMT
Interesting, interesting, insert all the spheres in your models.
I am happy that people focus on my theory of spherization, QUANTUM SPHERES.....COSMOLOGICAL SPHERES....UNIVERSAL SPHERE.
don't forget! THEY TURN SO THEY ARE !!!
:) REVOLUTION SPHERIZATION my friends.
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 09:52 GMT
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for reading my essay and commenting on it.
Figure 2 in my essay is an illustration (as opposed to an exact representation) of the concept of stepwise motion that I have developed. The balls depict particlelike states, but it is wrong to think of these as classical "particles"; in addition, the intermediate wavelike states have nothing to do with quantum-mechanical...
view entire post
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for reading my essay and commenting on it.
Figure 2 in my essay is an illustration (as opposed to an exact representation) of the concept of stepwise motion that I have developed. The balls depict particlelike states, but it is wrong to think of these as classical "particles"; in addition, the intermediate wavelike states have nothing to do with quantum-mechanical wave functions. The universe, in which this stepwise motion takes place, could not be described with the physical language of classical mechanics, nor with that of quantum mechanics - it required the development of a new ontological repertoire. The basic concept is a 'phase quantum', but I have omitted any talk about it to render my essay accessible to a broad audience. If you are interested I can only refer to my two papers in Annalen der Physik which are mentioned in the essay; there is no other, more easy introduction to the material.
I agree with the quote in your essay: "nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration." In addition, I do not believe that such a revolution can originate at any of the so-called top universities.
Now about your essay. I have two issues with it.
1) In §2 on page 2, you mention that when integrating over a specific interval [a, b] two different integrands (functions) can yield the same integral. Of course this is so, e.g. the function f(x) = 2x and the constant function g(x) = 1 yield the same integral over the interval [0,1]. But then you seem to go off on a tangent. You define f
1 = C - f
2 and then you show that both f
1 and C - f
2 yield the same integral over the interval [x
1, x
2]. But how is that an example of two different functions yielding the same integral? The functions "f
1" and "C - f
2" are, namely, identical by your own definition. And as a side note, the term "C" in this defintion of yours is a constant function, not a constant of integration (which is a number) as you seem to imply in figure 2. So why this example?
2) In General Relativity (GR), the index-free form of the Einstein field equation (EFE) is
I understand that you want to replace this EFE by this equation:
But why is that an improvement? With the EFE, one can calculate the metric tensor (or the metric tensor and the cosmological constant) given the stress-energy tensor T. But what is the physical interpretation of the tensor L in your equation? You might be able to calculate it, but what is it? You refer to figure 3 as an illustration, but what are the two scalar fields in the bottom picture physically? What is their physical source? What is the corresponding theory of gravitation (what is gravitation according to you)? It seems to me that your idea requires some further development.
All in all, the parallell between our essays is that we both question GR. But there are nuances. I believe that GR is correct in its area of application, but emergent instead of fundamental. You, on the other hand, seem to believe that GR isn't even correct in its area of application, as you suggest another field equation - I take it that you propose these as an improvement of the EFE even at macroscopic scale. Am I correct?
Good luck with the contest.
Best regards, Marcoen
@Steve: hail all hail to the revolution (Jon English).
view post as summary
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 11:07 GMT
:) with wisdom and consciousness.
report post as inappropriate
Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 21:21 GMT
Marcoen,
I will put my responses for your essay here, and for your questions I will copy them over to my essay page.
I will have to read through your papers in Annalen der Physik (is there an Arxiv version available?) but are you stating that the universe is actually discrete and not a continuum? I look forward to reading your published material also as "phase" makes me think that perhaps you are considering particle movement as the tracking of some kind of phase change.
Regards,
Jeff
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 21:48 GMT
Jeff,
There is no arxiv version of my Annalen papers. And yes, the theory describes a discrete universe. Motion arises from discrete state transitions.
I'll check your essay page for your response to my comments.
Best regards, Marcoen
Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 00:07 GMT
Marcoen,
(1)Can you elaborate on this sentence: "Given that there is no evidence at all that GR or QM are applicable to the supersmall scale, cf. [10–12], it is currently thus absolutely not excluded that the actual interactions causing gravitational and quantum effects occur at a much smaller scale than the areas of applicationof GR and QM, so that GR and QM are not fundamental but merely emergent in their area of application." I take it that this happens at smaller scales than QM (ala string theory scales?).
(2) Also "according to GR, in between the two measurements the electron was at every point of time in the state of a particle with a definite position." This seems to not take into account that momentum is a big part of GR. Doesn't GR observe the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?
(3) You state:"In addition, it has been shown that the EPT adheres to the general principle of relativity, that is, that the elementary principles of the EPT are the same for all observers." This sounds more like a definition for Special Relativity, no?
(4)"In short, the EPT can not be incorporated in the current research programs based on QM and/or GR." and "That means that further research in this direction may not lead to an improved understanding of physical reality, but it may also lead to the establishment of the EPT as a scientific theory."
Does this mean that although you might have a hypothesis which deals for physics below the quantum level, you may not be able to show that it reduces to current theories as a special case? Wouldn't this give us three theories: relativity, quantum theory and then EPT, none of which are compatible?
Regards,
Jeff
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 18:08 GMT
Hi Jeff,
As to your questions:
(1) My theory, the EPT, is intended as a theory of the individual processes in the universe, which then take place at supersmall scale where distances much smaller than 10
-25 m play a role. The idea is thus that the perceived physics of the subatomic scale (QM) and of the macroscopic scale (GR) emerge from an accumulation of a large number of...
view entire post
Hi Jeff,
As to your questions:
(1) My theory, the EPT, is intended as a theory of the individual processes in the universe, which then take place at supersmall scale where distances much smaller than 10
-25 m play a role. The idea is thus that the perceived physics of the subatomic scale (QM) and of the macroscopic scale (GR) emerge from an accumulation of a large number of these individual processes, and thus emerge from the physics at Planck scale. This is indeed also the topic of "string theory", but I consider the latter neither a theory, nor physics, nor philosophy.
(2) To explain the basic difference between QM, GR and the EPT for a broad audience is it sufficient to focus on how an electron got from A to B according to these three theories. Indeed it is then not necessary to speak about momentum. GR is a classical theory, implying that a particle has a definite position and a definite momentum at every point in time in the framework of GR. Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, as he formulated it originally in his landmark 1927 paper, asserts that it is not possible to simultaneously measure position and momentum with infinite precision: this doesn't exclude that a particle can have a definite momentum and position, so GR isn't necessarily at odds with the uncertainly relation. QM deals with this in an entirely different manner, as it entails a form of Berkelian idealism regarding the existence of properties of particles.
(3) The general principle of relativity - which is something else than the general theory of relativity! - is indeed one of the axioms of Special Relativity (SR), but it is at the metalavel: it is not a physical principle at object level, but a principle about physical laws. I have shown that this principle holds in the framework of the EPT. I have also reasoned that the other axiom of SR can be added to the EPT as an analytical principle; all in all the EPT is thus compatible with the two axioms of SR.
(4) In my Annalen paper I have formally proven that both QM and GR are incompatible with the EPT: neither QM nor GR is thus a special case of the EPT. That indeed gives three mutually exclusive theories. Fortunately, however, the scientific method can decide which of the two-tuple (GR, EPT) has to be rejected, and which of the two-tuple (QM, EPT) has to be rejected.
Best regards, Marcoen
view post as summary
Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 01:51 GMT
Hi Marcoen,
"As a side note, in the framework of my own theory, the EPT, the observed space is a material substance which is transcended by matter waves (there are, thus, two different kinds of components). A metric may then be defined in terms of a difference between two scalars (close to what you suggest) but at this point it is not possible to conduct tensor algebra in this framework as the necessary mathematics have yet to be developed."
I would like to understand this a bit more. Can you elaborate what you mean by "a material substance which is transcended by matter waves (there are, thus, two different kinds of components)"? By components, you still mean only one material substance, but it still requires two in order to fully describe matter and energy? My two components can be though of as a homogeneous "potential for energy" and a wave equation that represents a localized quanta of energy (reduction in the potential).
Regards,
Jeff
report post as inappropriate
Jeff Baugher replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 01:53 GMT
Marcoen,
Also, please register an author vote for my essay. I hope that you have found it as interesting as I have yours.
Regards,
Jeff
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 07:57 GMT
Jeff,
In the framework of the EPT, the universe (as a whole) is an isolated, heterogeneous system. One of the phases is that what is observed as space. This particular phase has two kinds of indivisible, ultimate constituents, which are called 'phase quanta' (a 'quantum' in its original sense is the smallest possible amount of something, so a 'phase quantum' is the smallest possible amount of a phase):
* there are spatial phase quanta: together these form the substance 'space';
* there are nonlocal wavelike phase quanta: these are matter waves that transcend (i.e. go through) the spatial phase quanta.
All phase quanta are forms of energy; the idea is then that the spatial phase quanta in themselves form a space with homogenenous energy density (so if you add another phase quanta, space expands), while the nonlocal wavelike phase quanta cause differences in energy density.
If I would have to put that in a formula, then let the spatial phase quanta add up to a real valued field Phi, and let the nonlocal wavelike phase quanta add up to an imaginary valued field Psi; then the metric tensor g at a point x would be:
The EPT describes how the constituents of the fields Phi and Psi arise, so the challenge is then to demonstrate that Einstein's field equations emerge from here. That would be the topic of my postdoc research.
I hope this has made the matter somewhat more understandable.
Best regards, Marcoen
PS: as to your second message: done!
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 13:35 GMT
Slight correction: in the formula, g(x) stands for the spatial components of a diagonalized form of the metric tensor; so it has to be seen as g(x)
ii. Else the equation has a tensor on the left and a number on the right.
hide replies
Anonymous wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 16:58 GMT
Is your PhD thesis available online? All I could find through a quick search was an abstract.
Thank you.
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 18:17 GMT
Hello,
The PhD thesis is indeed not online, only the abstract is. I signed a contract with a publisher (Eburon).
If you live in Belgium, Netherlands or Germany then it should be no problem to get a copy from the library.
In other countries you can aks a local library to rent a book from a library from one of the above countries, but I guess that takes somewhat longer.
Regards, Marcoen
James T. Dwyer wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 21:40 GMT
Hi Marcoen,
Very professional essay - congratulations! As a lay person I may not be able to follow your explanations (although they were quite straightforward) entirely. I would like to point out that it should not be presumed that, if anti-hydrogen rises in relation to the Earth's gravitational field within its confinement apparatus it would be a demonstration of anti-gravitation. That could only be determined if it contradicted hydrogen in identical conditions of confinement - that normal hydrogen falls to Earth. I'm sure this is already understood, but confirmation is necessary.
Fundamentally, I don't understand how a positive rest mass could physically produce a negative 'gravitational mass'. Aren't both inertial mass and 'gravitational mass' both directly derived from particle rest mass?
What mechanism producing the effect of gravitation could possibly distinguish between the positive rest mass of hydrogen and the positive rest mass of anti-hydrogen to produce opposite effects?
While it may not be directly related, you might find my 3 page systems analysis-essay,
Inappropriate Application of Kepler's Empirical Laws of Planetary Motion to Spiral Galaxies Created the Perceived Galaxy Rotation Problem - Thereby Establishing a Galactic Presence for the Elusive, Inferred Dark Matter, interesting...
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 12:46 GMT
Hello James,
Thanks for reading my essay and for commenting on it which such kind words.
In the currently accepted theory of gravitation, General Relativity (GR), inertial mass m
i and gravitational mass m
g indeed derive from rest mass m
0. GR uses the classical notion of a particle, which is an object that moves on a continuous trajectory through space and time: if we look at a particle two times in a row, then the second time we see the same object only later in time. At every point in time the particle has inertial mass (with m
i = m
0 if the particle doesn't move relative to the observer) and the principle of equivalence then postulates that its gravitational mass (its "charge" for the gravitational force) is simply the same - as in m
g = m
i.
In the framework of my theory, the Elementary process Theory (EPT), this whole classical world view, in particular the notion of a particle, is rejected. In the framework of the EPT electrons, protons, neutrons and their antimatter counterparts alternate between particlelike and wavelike states. Consider that an electron is in a particlelike state at a certain position: by a discrete state transition, the particlelike state then ceases to exist and the electron gets in a wavelike state. After a (short) period of time, this wavelike state collapses (and thus ceases to exist) and the electron again gets in a particle like state at a new position (that way, displacement is accomplished). This new particlelike state is a new object: it is not the previous particlelike state later in time (see fig. 2 in the essay). To get to gravitation: the particle states are devoid of motion: displacement is accomplished in the wavelike states. Rest mass is a property of the particlelike states, gravitational mass a property of the wavelike states. Hydrogen and anti-hydrogen have both particle states with positive rest mass, but their wavelike states differ in sign qua gravitational mass. The wavelike state of "ordinary" hydrogen has the tendency to accomplish a displacement towards a stronger gravitational field (i.e. towards earth), while the wavelike state of anti-hydrogen has the tendency to accomplish a displacement towards a weaker gravitational field (i.e. away from earth). So the difference in sign in m
g is because of a difference in action, in what the wavelike state does.
I hope that this clears things up a little bit. For a more elaborate description, see my Annalen paper (ref [2] in the essay).
I'm rather pressed for time, but I'll read your essay as soon as possible. I'll post my comments, if any, on your thread.
Best regards, Marcoen
Anonymous replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 21:25 GMT
HI Marcoen,
I appreciate your time, but I'm compelled to comment by the harmonious chord struck by you overview of EPT! I'm not likely to refer to your reference simply because it's unlikely that I cold reasonably follow your more detailed descriptions. However, your summary is remarkably similar to my own loosely conceptual model of quantum gravity. I really don't wish to waste your...
view entire post
HI Marcoen,
I appreciate your time, but I'm compelled to comment by the harmonious chord struck by you overview of EPT! I'm not likely to refer to your reference simply because it's unlikely that I cold reasonably follow your more detailed descriptions. However, your summary is remarkably similar to my own loosely conceptual model of quantum gravity. I really don't wish to waste your time, but briefly, a few points:
- In the early universe, particles could neither propagate nor be reabsorbed into the exceedingly dense/hot vacuum. As a result, their emission energy was reconfigured from its directionally propagating wave state to a localized particle state, likely directionally reconfigured such that it encompassed a point, everywhere directed to the focal point, counteracting directional propagation - this is potential mass-energy.
- The frequency/duration of propagation/particle state manifestation (of persistent stable particles) is a function of the immediate (universal), temporally varying vacuum energy density - at the moment of particle emission. As vacuum energy diminishes, configured mass decreases and propagation increases since particles are manifested as waves with increasing frequency/duration. Eventually, emitted particles are primarily 'perpetually' propagating photons.
- Eventual propagation direction is determined by particle spin at the moment it is remanifested as a wave. Since photons are, in effect, in a perpetual wave state, their propagation direction is seldom redetermined (by much).
- Note that if external directional energy is applied to a point-directed spherical field of self-opposed potential mass-energy, it can be at least partially opposed and absorbed by opposingly and similarly directed mass-energy, physically producing the effect of inertia.
In this scenario the particle mass assignment function of the Higgs field is simply and inherently performed by vacuum energy density, either allowing emission energy to produce linear propagation or requiring its reconfiguration as mass. Propagation direction is generally randomly determined by particle spin, but is influenced by the application of external energy (including gravitation). The frequency of wave state manifestation in any particular direction produces motion.
I'll desist now. Obviously there are some areas where the two conceptions disagree, but I find the similarities quite striking! Thanks for your time.
Best wishes, Jim
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 19:47 GMT
Hi Jim,
First of all, I must say the following. Yes, I'm pressed for time but I'm sincerely interested in reading the comments (and in general, in finding the truth about the foundations of physics), so please do not ever think that you waste my time with it.
The terminology in your comment is very difficult to understand. I would have to read your essay to get a grasp of the concepts. For example, take the sentence "their emission energy was reconfigured from its directionally propagating wave state to a localized particle state". Do you mean that emitted photons turned into rest-mass-having particles?
In the framework of my theory there are two kinds of wavelike matter. As a result, photons are a fundamentally different type of matter than the matter waves that occur in the process of alternation of electrons, protons and the likes. So in this framework, photons cannot turn into rest-mass-having particles.
Best regards, Marcoen
Anonymous replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 22:51 GMT
Hi Marcoen,
Thanks again for your consideration. I do apologize for my vague use of inappropriate terminology, as I have no education or background directly related to physics. My essay is not at all related to the nature of matter, so wouldn't be of much help. Again, you're more than welcome to read it - its awkward title is self descriptive: Inappropriate Application of Kepler's...
view entire post
Hi Marcoen,
Thanks again for your consideration. I do apologize for my vague use of inappropriate terminology, as I have no education or background directly related to physics. My essay is not at all related to the nature of matter, so wouldn't be of much help. Again, you're more than welcome to read it - its awkward title is self descriptive:
Inappropriate Application of Kepler's Empirical Laws of Planetary Motion to Spiral Galaxies Created the Perceived Galaxy Rotation Problem - Thereby Establishing a Galactic Presence for the Elusive, Inferred Dark Matter.
My vague conception of the nature of matter is, I think, generally compatible with your proposal: however, perpetually self propagating zero rest-mass photons are like other matter, except that they are only localized as a particle when their kinetic propagation/potential mass energy is absorbed by particles having rest-mass. I simply suggest that the principal distinction between photons and matter is that photons are emitted into an environment of disperse vacuum energy that does not constrain their self-propagation.
My statement "their emission energy was reconfigured from its directionally propagating wave state to a localized particle state" is intended to convey that all particles are equivalent as initially emitted; that it was the exceedingly hot and dense early vacuum, or perhaps the limited (quantum bubbles of initial foamy) space into which particles were emitted, that caused the reconfiguration of emission energy from a kinetic wave state propagation producing force to the localized potential energy of particle state rest-mass.
Quarks are the primary example of the earliest persistently stable particles. I don't think any quarks have ever been produced except in the extreme conditions of the very early universe. Since then, the universal expansion of spacetime has dispersed vacuum energy, preventing the emission of high mass particles except in very isolated, extreme conditions, I think most often involving the decay or disintegration of existing particles of mass.
In this scenario, the amount of mass exhibited by any particle is determined by its frequency and duration of its alternating manifestations as a particle and a wave. The property of mass is exhibited by the localized particle configuration of emission energy; it is otherwise expressed as wave propagation.
I hope this helps a bit - I'm really not well versed enough to properly describe this unrefined conceptual scenario in terms relating to any established physics theory, much less in mathematical terms! I am happy to try to answer any questions resulting from these inept explanations...
Best wishes, Jim
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Steven Dinowitz wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 06:05 GMT
Hi Marcoen,
Well it seems that by very different routes we have come to similar – though not exactly the same - conclusions (see my essay: “The Law of Conservation of Baryon Number, Antimatter Antigravity, and the Experiment that Never Gets Done”). Also, we have both crossed paths with M. Villata over his paper “CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity”. It seems that our thought processes are the same with regard to his 'reasoning' as well. As you well know he comes to the same conclusion we have, but does so by the untenable assumption that “antiparticles are nothing else than the corresponding particles traveling backwards in time”. Decades ago – before antimatter in the lab had anything but a fleeting existence , Isaac Asimov, in one of his many science speculation books: “Science, Numbers, and I”, used the same assumption to separate a matter and an antimatter universe - “one moving forward in time and the other backward, so that the two are out of reach of each other before the can interact.” At least, given the assumption that antiparticles are nothing else than the corresponding particles traveling backwards in time, that made sense. But other than citing references from the 1940's, how does Villata justify such an assumption in an age where antimatter has been confined for several minutes – clearly moving forward in time?
And yet Villata's paper has gotten a lot of traction. How can this be? What are your thoughts on this?
Regards,
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 10:01 GMT
Hello Steven,
Villata derived an equation that describes the behavior (antigravity) of antimatter particles moving in the gravitational field of matter. His intention was (and is) to use that equation at astronomical scale, where one can model a planet as a particle. I think he has a point, as his equation is a relation between observable parameters (so if there really is matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion, then you can verify this equation by measurement).
Another thing is when you extrapolate the area of applicability of Villata's equation to the microcosmos. Then you get to the fundamental questions. For the reasons mentioned in my comment to Villata's paper in Astrophys. Space Sc. (
also accessible on the arxiv) I believe Villata's extension of GR is untenable as a foundational framework. But I do agree with Villata that it has merit as an emergent theory (under the condition that gravitational repulsion exists).
Villata's paper has gotten a lot of attention because it is both accessible and controversial. The material falls within the area of competence of every professional theoretical physicist, so you get a lot of opinions and thus a lot of discussion.
For contrast, consider my paper in Ann. Phys.: with regard to the fundamental questions it is far more elaborate than Villata's paper, it is at least as controversial, yet it received far less attention. The point is that the material is inaccessible for the average Joe the Physicist, as the standard physics curriculum does not provide any education in formal axiomatic systems (logic). So the average Joe the Physicist would first have to do courses in logic, and even then the Annalen paper is no easy reading material. As a result, at the moment there are less than ten people who understand the theory at object level (my estimate).
To conclude my post, let me make a general statement: for a paper in a peer-reviewed journal to receive lots of attention, a necessary and sufficient condition is that the material must be both controversial and accessible to a large audience. Villata's paper satisfies this condition, mine doesn''t. Luckily, it is not my goal to get lots of attention.
Best regards, Marcoen
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 13:40 GMT
Dear
Very interesting to see your essay.
Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.
So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.
Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close...
view entire post
Dear
Very interesting to see your essay.
Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.
So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.
Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.
Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:
You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.
Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?
The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?
Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?
You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.
Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?
Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.
Regard !
Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY
August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 07:33 GMT
Dear Marcoen,
It seems that the idea of Antimatter Antigravity is not compatible with the Theory of
Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter which is considered in my essay. In the theory the substance of all the particles is the same similar to substance for planets and stars. Antiparticles have opposite charge only. And quarks are not real particles but quasiparticles.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 22:33 GMT
Dear Sergey,
Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.
Not only the idea of a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion is incompatible with your theory: also the ontology of my theory, the EPT, is incompatible with any "infinitely deep" ontology that implies the negation of the assumption of indivisible constituents. The point is that the universe of the EPT contains pointparticle-like objects (this is not mentioned in the essay): it is then of course nonsense to suggest that these are made up of yet "smaller" constituents. But that is, of course, not an argument against a non-atomic ontology in general.
I know that the assumption of indivisible constituents and the negation of that assumption form one of Kant's antinomies: Kant considered that it is not possible to know for sure whether or not the universe has ultimate constituents. An epistemological problem of theories without elementary (i.e. indivisible) particles seems to be that it is not even theoretically possible for us humans to test certain predictions of those theories: those predictions, namely, that are about layers of reality that are experimentally inaccessible to us cannot be tested, not even in principle. If e.g. an electron is an entire universe, then how can we test predictions about constituents of planets in that universe? I don't see it. One surely can belief in such a theory, but knowledge is justified true belief; as there is no way to demonstrate that these theorems, these predictions about inaccessible layers of reality, contain knowledge about the physical world, such a theory - even if true - can at most form a belief system. At least, that is how I see it. What is your opinion?
C uvazheniyem, Marcoen
report post as inappropriate
Gary Simpson wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 00:57 GMT
A very interesting idea and a pretty good read. Thanks for thinking outside the box.
I think you might enjoy the works of Milo Wolff. Also, I have posted a paper on viXra.org titled "The Wave Equation and Rotation". I think you might be interested in equations 18.1 and 18.2. I speculated that matter and anti-matter will experience a repulsive gravitational force.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
Houston, Tx
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 23:13 GMT
Dear Gary,
Thanks for your kind words on my essay.
I have looked at your paper "The Wave Equation and Rotation" to which you refer in your post. I am familiar with the quaternions, and also with the Euler equation. It is an interesting idea to use Euler-type equations for quaternions; however, it leads to contradiction. I will demonstrate this below.
From the pages 2 and 3 in your paper it is obvious that you want to add the following three equations to the quaternions:
Using (1) and (2), we get
However, since addition is commutative for quaternions, we get
Thus, from (4) - (6) we get
For the quaternions, however, we have
That proves the contradiction. The equations (1) - (3) can thus not be added to the (theory of the) quaternions. I would advise you to reconsider this aspect of your theory.
Best regards, Marcoen
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 17:11 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.
Cood luck.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Steven Dinowitz wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 18:52 GMT
Hi Marcoen,
I think I made an interesting discovery, please check out my post of 9/19/12. Let me know what you think!
Regards,
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 08:22 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 11:10 GMT
Dear Marcoen
Congratulations for posting this very interesting essay, and for persisting with your project over many years. It is people like you who bring new ideas to physics and stubbornly follow them up to introduce the breakthroughs.
In my 2005
Beautiful Universe Theory (BU) upon which I based
my fqxi essay Fix Physics! all matter, radiation and space itself is made of just of one type of ether lattice node which rotates as a magnetic dipole. When neighboring nodes are aligned with their like poles facing they repulse each other.
That is how I explain both dark energy and dark matter. (GR) has no provision for such polarity (and local chirality) in the universe, but (BU) provides a physical basis for such notions as antimatter. The details of course have to be worked out before proceeding further, but here is what I just thought of, based on the (BU) concepts::
Because all matter nodes spin in the same same direction i.e. have the same chirality, (which explains the right-hand rule of electromagnetism) there is gravitational attraction between two particles of ordinary matter. A matter particle facing an antimatter particle will repel each other. An anti-matter particle facing another anti-matter particle will be attracted to it.
I was not aware of the experiments planned to test anti-matter gravitation. Fascinating!
Please read Eric Reiter's essay about the photon.
I wish you the best of luck.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 10:21 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Thanks for your kind words.
Your essay mentions interesting questions. Your BU Theory is difficult to assess. The paper to which you refer contains illustrations, but no mathematical formulation of the basic principles or concepts. If you want to have your theory evaluated, you should work on that. In Australia there is another group (the Process Physics group) that investigates a view of the universe as a network; perhaps you can get some valuable feedback from them.
Best regards, Marcoen
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.