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

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

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

Contests Home

Previous Contests

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Kamilla Kamilla**: *on* 4/10/16 at 17:09pm UTC, wrote I wanted to thank you for this excellent read!! I definitely loved every...

**Tony Trenton**: *on* 11/1/12 at 13:03pm UTC, wrote Because all +ve matter is attractive. It only take a differential of 1 part...

**Tony Trenton**: *on* 11/1/12 at 12:58pm UTC, wrote Because all +ve matter is attractive. It only take a differential of 1 part...

**Alan**: *on* 10/28/12 at 6:17am UTC, wrote John, A further thought (maybe not original) after reading your essay...

**John Macken**: *on* 10/4/12 at 17:31pm UTC, wrote Sergey, Thank you for your two comments. Apparently you have put in a lot...

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/4/12 at 7:12am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/2/12 at 14:15pm UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

**John Macken**: *on* 9/28/12 at 16:54pm UTC, wrote Vladimir, I have read your essay and looked over your "Beautiful Universe...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**Jorma Seppaenen**: "Dear Georgina, I think you are perfectly right about the estimate of age..."
*in* Why Time Might Not Be an...

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other..."
*in* Why Time Might Not Be an...

**akash hasan**: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..."
*in* Announcing Physics of the...

**Michael Jordan**: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

**Anonymous**: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..."
*in* Constructing a Theory of...

**Robert McEachern**: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

**Thermo-Demonics**

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

**Gravity's Residue**

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

**Could Mind Forge the Universe?**

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

**Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes**

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

FQXi FORUM

May 25, 2019

CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]

TOPIC: Insights Into the Unification of Forces by John Alan Macken [refresh]

TOPIC: Insights Into the Unification of Forces by John Alan Macken [refresh]

Previously unknown simple equations are presented which show a close relationship between the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force. For example, the gravitational force can be expressed as the square of the electromagnetic force for a fundamental set of conditions. These equations also imply that the wave properties of particles are an important component in the generation of these forces. These insights contradict previously held assumptions about gravity.

John A. Macken is a retired laser physicist. He is the inventor of over 35 patents with most of them relating to lasers and optics. He worked in the aerospace industry, then he was a founder of Lasercraft Inc. He served as president of this company for 20 years (until 1991). Then he split this company and became president of Optical Engineering Inc. for 9 years. He has a BS in physics from St. Mary's College of California and currently is on the Board of Trustees of that college.

post approved

See Eric Verlinde articles....

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Yuri

You reference the work of Eric Verlinde. For those that do not know, he is a prominent physicist who is the author of a paper titled "On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton". In this paper he claims that gravity is not a true force. His explanation of gravity incorporates information theory and the holographic principle. This approach represents an opposite extreme of the ideas presented in my article. My paper contains mathematical relationships between gravity and the electromagnetic force which place new limitations on any gravitational theory. I do not believe that Velinde's explanation of gravity is compatible with these new relationships.

You reference the work of Eric Verlinde. For those that do not know, he is a prominent physicist who is the author of a paper titled "On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton". In this paper he claims that gravity is not a true force. His explanation of gravity incorporates information theory and the holographic principle. This approach represents an opposite extreme of the ideas presented in my article. My paper contains mathematical relationships between gravity and the electromagnetic force which place new limitations on any gravitational theory. I do not believe that Velinde's explanation of gravity is compatible with these new relationships.

Hello,

It is interesting these words Mr. Macken.

I am going to read your essay.

Until soon

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

It is interesting these words Mr. Macken.

I am going to read your essay.

Until soon

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dear John

If you have free time read please my essay

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

report post as inappropriate

If you have free time read please my essay

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

report post as inappropriate

Dear John Alan Macken,

A number of essays appear to present new material, and yours is one of them. You have generated a truly fascinating relation, Fg=Fe^2, that I have not seen before. A quick read of your essay did not show me any obvious mistakes, so I assume that all of the conversions you do are done correctly. A very interesting result!

I think what I like most about your essay is your two paragraph discussion of "erroneous assumption #3", that forces are generated by messenger particles. Your logic is clean and simple and appears unassailable. By the way, Frank Wilczek admitted in 2007 in Nature that the Yukawa force (essentially 'messenger particles') breaks down at hard core distances.

Congratulations on a very interesting essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

PS. Frank Makinson: that paper you linked to on Electromagnetic Solitons was very interesting as well.

report post as inappropriate

A number of essays appear to present new material, and yours is one of them. You have generated a truly fascinating relation, Fg=Fe^2, that I have not seen before. A quick read of your essay did not show me any obvious mistakes, so I assume that all of the conversions you do are done correctly. A very interesting result!

I think what I like most about your essay is your two paragraph discussion of "erroneous assumption #3", that forces are generated by messenger particles. Your logic is clean and simple and appears unassailable. By the way, Frank Wilczek admitted in 2007 in Nature that the Yukawa force (essentially 'messenger particles') breaks down at hard core distances.

Congratulations on a very interesting essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

PS. Frank Makinson: that paper you linked to on Electromagnetic Solitons was very interesting as well.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin,

Thank you for the compliments. I can assure you that the equations are correct and absolutely original. I have been working on the book - The Universe Is Only Spacetime - for over 10 years. If you want to see how these equations are developed from basic starting assumptions, download this book from my website (Google the book title). The information about gravity presented here is just the beginning of many new insights into gravity, electric fields, vacuum energy, cosmology, etc.

Thank you for the compliments. I can assure you that the equations are correct and absolutely original. I have been working on the book - The Universe Is Only Spacetime - for over 10 years. If you want to see how these equations are developed from basic starting assumptions, download this book from my website (Google the book title). The information about gravity presented here is just the beginning of many new insights into gravity, electric fields, vacuum energy, cosmology, etc.

John,

Interesting arguments. If forces are not transferred by messenger particles, how do you explain it or did I miss your explanation because of a quick read. In my essay, I speak of emperical evidence of anti-particles whose energy can be harnessed. Does your theory accommodate this belief?

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Interesting arguments. If forces are not transferred by messenger particles, how do you explain it or did I miss your explanation because of a quick read. In my essay, I speak of emperical evidence of anti-particles whose energy can be harnessed. Does your theory accommodate this belief?

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Jim,

You asked, "If forces are not transferred by messenger particles, how do you explain it...?" This is a great question because it gives me an opportunity to explain an important point. When I wrote this essay I took seriously the instruction not to use the essay to advance a new theory. Therefore the mechanism for transferring force was not included in the essay. However, all aspects of this new theory are available in a book that can be downloaded at the website OnlySpacetime.com. In chapters 6 and 8 of this book, (The Universe Is Only Spacetime) the force of gravity is derived without making an analogy to acceleration. The relationship between the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force described in my essay is just a small part of this total derivation. The basic premise of the book is that all particles, fields and forces are made from the single building block of energetic 4 dimensional spacetime (vacuum filled with zero point energy). Another important aspect is that electric fields and electric charge are demystified and described as quantifiable distortions of spacetime. Experiments are suggested.

You asked, "If forces are not transferred by messenger particles, how do you explain it...?" This is a great question because it gives me an opportunity to explain an important point. When I wrote this essay I took seriously the instruction not to use the essay to advance a new theory. Therefore the mechanism for transferring force was not included in the essay. However, all aspects of this new theory are available in a book that can be downloaded at the website OnlySpacetime.com. In chapters 6 and 8 of this book, (The Universe Is Only Spacetime) the force of gravity is derived without making an analogy to acceleration. The relationship between the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force described in my essay is just a small part of this total derivation. The basic premise of the book is that all particles, fields and forces are made from the single building block of energetic 4 dimensional spacetime (vacuum filled with zero point energy). Another important aspect is that electric fields and electric charge are demystified and described as quantifiable distortions of spacetime. Experiments are suggested.

The Macken paper represents a major advance. Connecting the Gravitational force to the Electromagnetic force is major. His proof is clear.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Joe,

Thank you for the endorsement. My book goes much further and shows the steps that derive the gravitational force between particles from first principles. This derivation relies only on the quantum mechanical properties of spacetime. There is no analogy to acceleration. Furthermore, the wave-based particle model explains many of the counterintuitive properties of quantum mechanics.

Thank you for the endorsement. My book goes much further and shows the steps that derive the gravitational force between particles from first principles. This derivation relies only on the quantum mechanical properties of spacetime. There is no analogy to acceleration. Furthermore, the wave-based particle model explains many of the counterintuitive properties of quantum mechanics.

Your argument that gravitation is the square of electromagnetism has some resonance to it with my work. It is not difficult to quantize weak gravity. This is usually written as a bimetric theory g_{ab} = η_{ab} + h_{ab}, where η_{ab} is a flat spacetime (Minkowski) metric and h_{ab} is a perturbation on to of flat spacetime. Gravitons enter in if you write the perturbing metric term...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence,

We have fundamentally different views of the universe in general and gravity in particular. From your post and essay, you model includes gravitons, vibrating strings, dilatons, axions, and compactified spacetime. While you do not enumerate exactly how many dimensions you need, I presume it is 5, 10, 11 or 26. I propose that the single building block of the universe is 4 dimensional spacetime which is filled with vacuum zero point energy. From Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is the best. Therefore, it is a worthy scientific pursuit to thoroughly explore this simplest possible starting assumption.

I am an inventor (36 patents), so I decided to see if it was possible to invent a model of the universe made out of only 4 dimensional spacetime. The first task was to develop a model of spacetime itself. This was followed by a model of particles made out of only spacetime. One day it occurred to me that if my particle and force models were correct, then there should be a relationship between gravity and the other forces which could be expressed as a square. The particle model was a wave in spacetime possessing quantized angular momentum of 1/2 h bar. There are many missing parts of this explanation, but the bottom line is that this model PREDICTED the mathematical relationships described in my essay. The entire analysis is documented in the online book available [onlyspacetime.com/]here. Other subjects covered include predictions about inertia, electric fields and cosmology.

We have fundamentally different views of the universe in general and gravity in particular. From your post and essay, you model includes gravitons, vibrating strings, dilatons, axions, and compactified spacetime. While you do not enumerate exactly how many dimensions you need, I presume it is 5, 10, 11 or 26. I propose that the single building block of the universe is 4 dimensional spacetime which is filled with vacuum zero point energy. From Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is the best. Therefore, it is a worthy scientific pursuit to thoroughly explore this simplest possible starting assumption.

I am an inventor (36 patents), so I decided to see if it was possible to invent a model of the universe made out of only 4 dimensional spacetime. The first task was to develop a model of spacetime itself. This was followed by a model of particles made out of only spacetime. One day it occurred to me that if my particle and force models were correct, then there should be a relationship between gravity and the other forces which could be expressed as a square. The particle model was a wave in spacetime possessing quantized angular momentum of 1/2 h bar. There are many missing parts of this explanation, but the bottom line is that this model PREDICTED the mathematical relationships described in my essay. The entire analysis is documented in the online book available [onlyspacetime.com/]here. Other subjects covered include predictions about inertia, electric fields and cosmology.

John

Despite the right letter my long post didn't stick! I didn't immediately notice. It's happened elsewhere too. The post was full of eulogies and congratulations for a quite brilliant essay, with much specific agreement, and on an important central topic.

Messenger particles have always made me almost distraught with present physics. Your foundations are entirely as used in my own essay, though I take a different route to a different vista of the same reality. A more naive view, with some theatre to assist in the seemingly impossible, kinetic visualisation required to unify SR GR and QM. You have that picture so may better recognise other aspects. I have a mountain of astronomical evidence supporting your view.

I'd greatly appreciate your considered views on my own essay, but if you try to read it too fast you may 'bounce off' the underlying and unfamiliar derivations.

Well done and very best of luck. Good score coming for sure.

Peter

PS. I've developed better glue via a a cut and re-paste technique so this should now post.

report post as inappropriate

Despite the right letter my long post didn't stick! I didn't immediately notice. It's happened elsewhere too. The post was full of eulogies and congratulations for a quite brilliant essay, with much specific agreement, and on an important central topic.

Messenger particles have always made me almost distraught with present physics. Your foundations are entirely as used in my own essay, though I take a different route to a different vista of the same reality. A more naive view, with some theatre to assist in the seemingly impossible, kinetic visualisation required to unify SR GR and QM. You have that picture so may better recognise other aspects. I have a mountain of astronomical evidence supporting your view.

I'd greatly appreciate your considered views on my own essay, but if you try to read it too fast you may 'bounce off' the underlying and unfamiliar derivations.

Well done and very best of luck. Good score coming for sure.

Peter

PS. I've developed better glue via a a cut and re-paste technique so this should now post.

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

I have read your essay and I believe that the description of spacetime I develop in my book will help you quantify some of your ideas. For example, I show that spacetime is an elastic medium with impedance of Z_{s} = c^{3}/G. This is obtained both from gravitational wave equations and from vacuum zero point energy density. The quantum mechanical model of spacetime that I develop has energy density of 10^{113} J/m^{3}. This energy density is equal to the famous 10^{120} ratio of vacuum energy density obtained from QED to the observed energy density of the universe obtained from cosmology and GR (10^{-9} J/m^{3}).

This large QED energy density is usually assumed to be impossible, but I show how it is not only possible but also essential for the existence of all particles, fields and forces. The point of interest to you is that I go on to characterize an electric field as a distortion of spacetime (a new constant of nature is suggested). When this constant is applied to electromagnetic radiation it is shown that the impedance of free space Z_{o} is equal to the impedance of spacetime obtained from gravitational waves. What this implies is that photons are a quantized wave disturbance that propagates in the medium of spacetime. This short post cannot address all questions but ultimately this relates to the perception that the speed of light is constant. The details are available here.

I have read your essay and I believe that the description of spacetime I develop in my book will help you quantify some of your ideas. For example, I show that spacetime is an elastic medium with impedance of Z

This large QED energy density is usually assumed to be impossible, but I show how it is not only possible but also essential for the existence of all particles, fields and forces. The point of interest to you is that I go on to characterize an electric field as a distortion of spacetime (a new constant of nature is suggested). When this constant is applied to electromagnetic radiation it is shown that the impedance of free space Z

John,

Great essay. I have yet to examine or attempt to find errors in your math but I do agree with your conclusions on at least two of the assumptions. I don't say three as I was not familiar with the second and want to examine it further. Your conclusions dovetail nicely with my own essay here, so any comments you have would also be appreciated.

Regards,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Great essay. I have yet to examine or attempt to find errors in your math but I do agree with your conclusions on at least two of the assumptions. I don't say three as I was not familiar with the second and want to examine it further. Your conclusions dovetail nicely with my own essay here, so any comments you have would also be appreciated.

Regards,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Jeff,

Even though my essay is about the unification of gravity with the electromagnetic force, the book behind the essay covers a much broader range of physics. For example, chapters 13 and 14 of this book discussed the implications for cosmology of the starting assumption that the universe is only spacetime. The expansion of the proper volume of the universe is explained as resulting from the transformation of the properties of spacetime. This transformation started with the Big Bang and continues today. This alternative model entirely changes the perspective on dark energy and the cosmological constant. It is not possible to explain the implications for dark energy in this short post, but details are available here.

Even though my essay is about the unification of gravity with the electromagnetic force, the book behind the essay covers a much broader range of physics. For example, chapters 13 and 14 of this book discussed the implications for cosmology of the starting assumption that the universe is only spacetime. The expansion of the proper volume of the universe is explained as resulting from the transformation of the properties of spacetime. This transformation started with the Big Bang and continues today. This alternative model entirely changes the perspective on dark energy and the cosmological constant. It is not possible to explain the implications for dark energy in this short post, but details are available here.

John,

Have been looking through your book, where I agree with a large portion of the philosophy within it. I would take exception to certain portions of 4.1

As we both know, Lambda g_{uv} may be equated to the potential energy of the quantum vacuum (based on wave equations). However, the magnitude of energy of the energy momentum tensor of T_{uv}=G_{uv} is based on a particle description of matter. From everything I have read in your book, you should have some concerns that these are describing energy with two different models.

You might find it helpful to consider whether General Relativity is the only description of energy possible with Riemannian geometry. By this I mean it may be possible to describe energy as particles with G_{uv}, or sticking with the wave model as Lambda g_{uv}-L_{uv}, but not both at the same time. As the second one seems to use only one model of spacetime, adhere to the same qualifications (divegencefree etc) as the particle model, but also should show a reversal of gravity depending on radius, I am curious as to how you would see it fitting within your own philosophy.

Regards,

Jeff Baugher

report post as inappropriate

Have been looking through your book, where I agree with a large portion of the philosophy within it. I would take exception to certain portions of 4.1

As we both know, Lambda g

You might find it helpful to consider whether General Relativity is the only description of energy possible with Riemannian geometry. By this I mean it may be possible to describe energy as particles with G

Regards,

Jeff Baugher

report post as inappropriate

Jeff,

Your post says, "I would take exception to certain portions of 4.1". I am not able to understand what 4.1 references. My chapter 4 does not deal with particles or potential energy. Also, I never use the term "potential energy" because I claim that all energy can be conceptually understood in terms of the effect on spacetime. Even two colliding particles (my model) do not have the vague notion of "potential energy". My wave based model specifies the structural changes that take place in particles to temporarily accommodate the extra energy storage.

report post as inappropriate

Your post says, "I would take exception to certain portions of 4.1". I am not able to understand what 4.1 references. My chapter 4 does not deal with particles or potential energy. Also, I never use the term "potential energy" because I claim that all energy can be conceptually understood in terms of the effect on spacetime. Even two colliding particles (my model) do not have the vague notion of "potential energy". My wave based model specifies the structural changes that take place in particles to temporarily accommodate the extra energy storage.

report post as inappropriate

If the Universe working thIS way, then your theory stand ?

Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28

alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1

e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12

report post as inappropriate

Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28

alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1

e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12

report post as inappropriate

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.

report post as inappropriate

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.

report post as inappropriate

Dear John,

I am sure that gravitation is a real physical force which can be explained in Le Sage theory, see Model of Gravitational Interaction in the Concept of Gravitons. In the article Planck force is the maximum force for star objects.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

I am sure that gravitation is a real physical force which can be explained in Le Sage theory, see Model of Gravitational Interaction in the Concept of Gravitons. In the article Planck force is the maximum force for star objects.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey,

I have looked over the article you reference and I have to respectfully disagree with the concept that gravitons cause gravity. The article does not offer any "proof" nor does it make any predictions. My article gives a previously unknown relationship between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force. I show that when the wave properties of particles are used to express separation distance and energy, then the gravitational force only differs from the electromagnetic force by a square term. Furthermore, this relationship was predicted by a model of the universe based on the quantum mechanical properties of 4 dimensional spacetime. The complete derivation of this model and the derivation of the forces is lengthy and contained in the online book referenced in my article.

John Macken

I have looked over the article you reference and I have to respectfully disagree with the concept that gravitons cause gravity. The article does not offer any "proof" nor does it make any predictions. My article gives a previously unknown relationship between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force. I show that when the wave properties of particles are used to express separation distance and energy, then the gravitational force only differs from the electromagnetic force by a square term. Furthermore, this relationship was predicted by a model of the universe based on the quantum mechanical properties of 4 dimensional spacetime. The complete derivation of this model and the derivation of the forces is lengthy and contained in the online book referenced in my article.

John Macken

Dear John

I read your essay and glanced through your tour-de-force book "The Univers Is Only Spacetime" and was really impressed by your insights into how to solve fundamental issues in physics. I envy you your highly professional mathematical description of your ideas.

At one point in your book you say "There is only one truly fundamental field. This single field is the dipole wave...

view entire post

I read your essay and glanced through your tour-de-force book "The Univers Is Only Spacetime" and was really impressed by your insights into how to solve fundamental issues in physics. I envy you your highly professional mathematical description of your ideas.

At one point in your book you say "There is only one truly fundamental field. This single field is the dipole wave...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir,

I have read your essay and looked over your "Beautiful Universe Theory". Unfortunately, I have found some technical flaws that would reveal themselves if you attempted to carry this model further and calculate the implied properties of your model of spacetime, fundamental particles and gravity. The model proposed in my book has undergone numerous plausibility calculations to make sure that each step conforms to reality. For example, my particle model of an electron gives the correct inertia, internal energy, gravity, Compton frequency, de Broglie wavelength, etc. This thorough analysis of each step has kept me on a narrow path. I have had the experience of occasionally straying off this narrow path and immediately the next calculation was off by a factor of 10^{50}. The essay that I have submitted describes an unexpected result obtained from the analysis of the gravitational and electromagnetic forces exerted between two of my wave-based particles.

John

I have read your essay and looked over your "Beautiful Universe Theory". Unfortunately, I have found some technical flaws that would reveal themselves if you attempted to carry this model further and calculate the implied properties of your model of spacetime, fundamental particles and gravity. The model proposed in my book has undergone numerous plausibility calculations to make sure that each step conforms to reality. For example, my particle model of an electron gives the correct inertia, internal energy, gravity, Compton frequency, de Broglie wavelength, etc. This thorough analysis of each step has kept me on a narrow path. I have had the experience of occasionally straying off this narrow path and immediately the next calculation was off by a factor of 10

John

Dear John

I suspect this is a rare layman reaction to your essay. My understanding of GUTS goes back to Maxwell and Einstein at University in the 70's, learning (and memorizing) the derivations but not really understanding the implications until later. Hawkin was excellent in his explanations in the 80's.

While I don't completely follow the maths, I don't need to. The result of your derivation is both beautiful and compelling in its simplicity. Gravity is a real force, it's even switched on at weekends,it is always positive ( right there is observational proof of your theory) and it must be related to other forces. Your essay makes this very clear, without the conceptually difficult requirement of particle (real or imaginary) exchange or multiple dimensions. I will now attempt to read your book

Thank you...

report post as inappropriate

I suspect this is a rare layman reaction to your essay. My understanding of GUTS goes back to Maxwell and Einstein at University in the 70's, learning (and memorizing) the derivations but not really understanding the implications until later. Hawkin was excellent in his explanations in the 80's.

While I don't completely follow the maths, I don't need to. The result of your derivation is both beautiful and compelling in its simplicity. Gravity is a real force, it's even switched on at weekends,it is always positive ( right there is observational proof of your theory) and it must be related to other forces. Your essay makes this very clear, without the conceptually difficult requirement of particle (real or imaginary) exchange or multiple dimensions. I will now attempt to read your book

Thank you...

report post as inappropriate

Alan,

Thank you for your complementary post. You really "get it" when it comes to understanding the significance of the relationship between the forces implied by the equations. In the article I was forced to skip over the derivation math because of the contest rules. However, it is simple algebra that is given in the book. The book goes much further and shows the origin of gravitational attraction without making an analogy to acceleration. When the model of particles, fields and forces is based on the quantum mechanical properties of spacetime, then all the mysteries of QM and GR becomes conceptually understandable.

John

Thank you for your complementary post. You really "get it" when it comes to understanding the significance of the relationship between the forces implied by the equations. In the article I was forced to skip over the derivation math because of the contest rules. However, it is simple algebra that is given in the book. The book goes much further and shows the origin of gravitational attraction without making an analogy to acceleration. When the model of particles, fields and forces is based on the quantum mechanical properties of spacetime, then all the mysteries of QM and GR becomes conceptually understandable.

John

John,

A further thought (maybe not original) after reading your essay again..

What if particle theory is unnecessary?

The physics of the last 2000 years has been dominated by measuring moving mass. Moving mass is what we see and touch, or try to detect and measure if we can’t see or touch it.

A particle suffices to satisfy our need to visualize something solid. Our visualization of solidity derives from the senses of touch and vision. Both of these work by energy sensors. The brain creates the perception of solidity from energy detection (philanthropic theory?).

Particles are interchangeable with energy, mass is energy. A force is a movement of energy in space time, which can be described in terms of wavelength, frequency, amplitude and phase.

All particle physics experiments detect energy. Everything we measure is a change in, or relocation of energy.

All energy can be described by wave theory. Forces can be unified in wave theory.

How nice it would be to forget about all those real and imaginary, infinite and mass-less particles, and think only of wavelength, frequency, amplitude and phase.

ajh44@live.co.uk

report post as inappropriate

A further thought (maybe not original) after reading your essay again..

What if particle theory is unnecessary?

The physics of the last 2000 years has been dominated by measuring moving mass. Moving mass is what we see and touch, or try to detect and measure if we can’t see or touch it.

A particle suffices to satisfy our need to visualize something solid. Our visualization of solidity derives from the senses of touch and vision. Both of these work by energy sensors. The brain creates the perception of solidity from energy detection (philanthropic theory?).

Particles are interchangeable with energy, mass is energy. A force is a movement of energy in space time, which can be described in terms of wavelength, frequency, amplitude and phase.

All particle physics experiments detect energy. Everything we measure is a change in, or relocation of energy.

All energy can be described by wave theory. Forces can be unified in wave theory.

How nice it would be to forget about all those real and imaginary, infinite and mass-less particles, and think only of wavelength, frequency, amplitude and phase.

ajh44@live.co.uk

report post as inappropriate

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

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

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

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey,

Thank you for your two comments. Apparently you have put in a lot of time reading and rating essays. I personally believe that my essay contains concrete new information that actually PROVES that the cited assumptions are wrong. I think that the connection between the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force described in my essay is an important new insight that needs to be communicated to the scientific community. I plan to expand this article and submit the new article to a scientific journal. In the final analysis, the best articles are the ones that have the biggest impact on science as judged by future generations.

John

Thank you for your two comments. Apparently you have put in a lot of time reading and rating essays. I personally believe that my essay contains concrete new information that actually PROVES that the cited assumptions are wrong. I think that the connection between the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force described in my essay is an important new insight that needs to be communicated to the scientific community. I plan to expand this article and submit the new article to a scientific journal. In the final analysis, the best articles are the ones that have the biggest impact on science as judged by future generations.

John

Because all +ve matter is attractive. It only take a differential of 1 part in 10^42 in the electron field density between one piece of mass and another for there to be the attraction we call gravity.

It is really that simple

report post as inappropriate

It is really that simple

report post as inappropriate

Because all +ve matter is attractive. It only take a differential of 1 part in 10^42 in the electron field density between one piece of mass and another for there to be the attraction we call gravity.

It is really that simple

Gravity is not a separate force but only the differential EMF between masses

report post as inappropriate

It is really that simple

Gravity is not a separate force but only the differential EMF between masses

report post as inappropriate

I wanted to thank you for this excellent read!! I definitely loved every little bit of it. I have you bookmarked your site to check out the new stuff you post.

192.168.1.254

report post as inappropriate

192.168.1.254

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.