gravity Archives | Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories

Electromagnetism: a new perspective Einstein would have like.

jeffocal — Tue, 14 Aug 2018 12:03:04 +0000

Einstein was often quoted as saying “If a new theory was not based on a physical image simple enough for a child to understand, it was probably worthless.”

For example in his General Theory of Relativity he derived the causality of gravity in terms of a curvature in the geometry of space and time.

One can understand how in terms of the physical image of a marble on a curved surface of a rubber diaphragm. The marble follows a circular pattern around the deformity in its surface. Similarly planets revolve around the sun because they follow a curved path in the deformed “surface” of space-time.

In other words he was able to integrate the physicality of gravity into our consciousness in terms of a physical image based on observing a marble moving on a curved surface.

However he was unable to do the same for electrical forces as was documented by the American Institute of Physics.

â€œFrom before 1920 until his death in 1955, Einstein struggled to find laws of physics far more general than any known before. In his theory of relativity, the force of gravity had become an expression of the geometry of space and time. The other forces in nature, above all the force of electromagnetism, had not been described in such terms. But it seemed likely to Einstein that electromagnetism and gravity could both be explained as aspects of some broader mathematical structure. The quest for such an explanation â€” for a â€œunified fieldâ€ theory that would unite electromagnetism and gravity, space and time, all together â€” occupied more of Einsteinâ€s years than any other activity.

In other words because time is only observed to move in one direction forward, a space-time universe can only support a force that cause movement in one direction towards an object such as gravity.

However, it would be easier to form a physical image of electrical forces if one converts or transposes Einstein’s space-time universe to one of only four *spatial* dimensions the because of the bidirectional symmetry of the spatial dimension.

In other words because time is only observed to move in one direction forward, a space-time universe can only support a force that cause movement in one direction towards an object such as gravity while one made up four *spatial* dimensions could support the towards and away or bi-directional movement associated with electromagnetism. Therefore because of the bidirectional symmetry of a spatial dimension it would be easier to form a physical image of electrical forces if one converts or transposes Einstein’s space-time universe to one of only four *spatial* dimensions.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he used the velocity of light and the equation E=mc^2 to define geometric properties of forces in space-time environment because it allows one to convert a unit of time in his four dimensional space-time universe to a unit of space in a universe consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it is possible to defined a one to one correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words by mathematically defining the geometric properties of time in his space-time universe in terms of the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining it in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.

The fact that one can use Einsteinâ€s equations to qualitatively and quantitatively redefine the curvature in space-time he associated with gravitational forces in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is one bases for assuming, as was done in the article â€œDefining energy?â€ Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy including gravitational and electromagnetism can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a â€œsurfaceâ€ of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

This allows one to form a physical image of electrical force as was done in the article “What is electromagnetism?“ Sept, 27 2007 in terms of the differential force caused by the “peaks” and “toughs” of a energy wave moving on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed it is possible to derive the electrical properties of electromagnetism by extrapolating the laws of Classical Wave Mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

A wave on the two-dimensional surface of water causes a point on that surface to be become displaced or rise above or below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present. A force will be developed by the differential displacement of the surfaces, which will result in the elevated and depressed portions of the water moving towards or become “attracted” to each other and the surface of the water.

Similarly a energy wave on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would cause a point on that “surface” to become displaced or rise above and below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.

Therefore, classical wave mechanics, if extrapolated to four *spatial* dimensions tells us a force will be developed by the differential displacements caused by a energy wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension that will result in its elevated and depressed portions moving towards or become “attracted” to each other.

This defines the causality of the attractive forces of unlike charges associated with the electromagnetic wave component of a photon in terms of a force developed by a differential displacement of a point on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However, it also provides a classical mechanism for understanding why similar charges repel each other because observations of water show that there is a direct relationship between the magnitudes of a displacement in its surface to the magnitude of the force resisting that displacement.

Similarly the magnitude of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by two similar charges will be greater than that caused by a single one. Therefore, similar charges will repel each other because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be greater for two charges than it would be for a single charge.

One can define the causality of electrical component of electromagnetic energy in terms of the energy associated with its “peaks” and “troughs” that is directed perpendicular to its velocity vector while its magnetic component would be associated with the horizontal force developed by that perpendicular displacement because classical Mechanics tells us a horizontal force will be developed by that displacement which will always be 90 degrees out of phase with it. This force is called magnetism.

This is analogous to how the vertical force pushing up of on mountain also generates a horizontal force, which pulls matter horizontally towards the apex of that displacement.

This shows how one can define a physician image for the causality electromagnetic forces in terms of the existence of four spatial dimensions.

Einstein was unable to accomplish this in terms of four-dimensional space-time because as mentioned earlier time is only observe to move in one direction forwards and therefore could not support the bi-directional component of electromagnetic forces.

However this also shows that Einstein was right, as was mentioned above in the American Institute of Physics article that electromagnetism and gravity can both be explained as aspects of some broader mathematical structure because as was shown above using only valid mathematical rules one can transform his space-time equations to four *spatial* dimensions thereby allowing one to form a clear physical image explaining the causality electromagnetic forces.

It should be remember that Einstein’s genius allows us to choose whether to create physical images of an unseen “reality” in either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined the geometry of space-time in choose terms of energy/mass and the constant velocity of light.

Later Jeff

The post Electromagnetism: a new perspective Einstein would have like. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Finally a logical explanation of the field around a solitary charge.

jeffocal — Thu, 01 Sep 2016 09:25:40 +0000

Have you ever wondered why so many seeming rational scientists make seemly irrational assumptions to explain why our universe behaves the way it does and why Einstein was unable see, as Robert Oerter pointed out in his book “The Theory of Almost Everything: the magic of relativistic Quantum electrodynamics or QED.

For example he tells one reason he may have felt this way is because it defines the charge around a solitary electron as being caused by the spontaneous creation and evaporation of virtual electron-positron pairs which then instantaneously disappear. In other words when a virtual electron-positron pair is created near the (real) electron, the (imaginary) virtual positron will be attracted toward the real electron, while the virtual electron is repelled. Therefore there should be a resulting separation of charge

I think most rational people would consider someone irrational if they tried to convince l us the reason why they were late for work was because a swam of virtual or imaginary cars were blocking the road and disappeared after we showed up.

Shouldn’t we hold our scientists to the same degree of rationality?

Most who have studied the history of science are aware that Einstein was vehemently opposed to many of the fundamental components of quantum mechanics such as the existence of virtual particle’s to explain an isolated charge.

This was true even though he was able, in his General Theory of Relativity to derive the force of gravity in terms of the geometry of space and time while being unable to do the same for electromagnetism and charge, as was documented by the American Institute of Physics.

“From before 1920 until his death in 1955, Einstein struggled to find laws of physics far more general than any known before. In his Theory of Relativity, the force of gravity had become an expression of the geometry of space and time. The other forces in nature, above all the force of electromagnetism, had not been described in such terms. But it seemed likely to Einstein that electromagnetism and gravity could both be explained as aspects of some broader mathematical structure. The quest for such an explanation — for a “unified field” theory that would unite electromagnetism and gravity, space and time, all together — occupied more of Einstein’s years than any other activity”.

One reason why it was difficult of him to visualize electromagnetic fields including those around a single charge may have been because he chose to define the universe in terms of four dimensional space-time instead of four *spatial* dimensions because, as will be shown below it easier to visualize the properties of electrometric waves and charge in terms of their spatial rather time or space-time properties.

However he did provide a method of understanding them in terms of their common properties when he chose to define gravity in a space-time environment in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and constant velocity of light because that give him the ability to redefined it terms of the spatial properties of four *spatial* dimensions. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative and qualitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

The fact that one can use Einsteinâ€s equations to qualitatively and quantitatively redefine the curvature in space-time he associated with gravity in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is one bases for assuming as was done in the article â€œDefining energy?â€ Nov 27, 2007 that all forces can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

One of the advantages to using this technique is that it allows one to define the physicality of gravitational and electrical forces including those around a single electron in the same terms.

For example In the article “Gravity in four spatial dimensions” Dec. 15, 2007 it was shown one can derive gravitational forces in terms of curvature or physical displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension as well as one in a four dimensional space-time environment.

However the article “What is electromagnetism?“ Sept, 27 2007 showed one can also derive the forces associated with electromagnetism in terms of a similar displacement in the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly that article showed it is possible to derive the forces associated with an electromagnetic wave by extrapolating the laws of Classical Wave Mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Similarly a matter wave on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would cause a point on that “surface” to become displaced or rise above and below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.

Therefore, classical wave mechanics, if extrapolated to four *spatial* dimensions tells us a force will be developed by the differential displacements caused by a matter wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension that will result in its elevated and depressed portions moving towards or become “attracted” to each other.

One can define the causality of electrical component of electromagnetic radiation in terms of the energy associated with its “peaks” and “troughs” that is directed perpendicular to its velocity vector while its magnetic component would be associated with the horizontal force developed by that perpendicular displacement.

However, Classical Mechanics tells us a horizontal force will be developed by that perpendicular or vertical displacement which will always be 90 degrees out of phase with it. This force is called magnetism.

This is analogous to how the vertical force pushing up of on mountain also generates a horizontal force, which pulls matter horizontally towards the apex of that displacement.

However, as was mentioned earlier gravity can also be explain in terms of a differential force caused by a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

This shows how one can define a common mechanism for the causality of both electromagnetism and gravity in terms of a “unified field” consisting of four *spatial* dimension by extrapolating the laws of classical mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words one can visualize the fact that unlike charge attract each other while like ones repel in terms of the asymmetrical properties of space-time or four spatial dimensions.

Einstein was unable to accomplish this in terms of four-dimensional space-time because time is only observe to move in one direction forwards and therefore making it difficult to visualize the bi-directional movement of the spatial component of a matter wave moving on its “surface” that is responsible for electromagnetism .

However it also give a more rational explanation of the charge around a solitary electron than the spontaneous creation and evaporation of virtual electron-positron pairs because it shows that it can be understood in terms of a physical displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimension space manifold with respect to fourth spatial dimension.

In other words it shows that electric forces are related to a physical displacement in a surface of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a either a higher spatial or time dimension thereby eliminating the need to evoke the existence of virtual electron-positron pairs to understand the behavior of a charge around a solitary electron.

It should be remember Einsteinâ€s genius allows us to choose to define charge in either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined that environment in terms mass energy and the constant velocity of light. This interchangeability broadens the environment encompassed by his theories thereby giving us a new perspective on the physicality of charge.

Latter Jeff

The post Finally a logical explanation of the field around a solitary charge. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

What antimatter can tell us about the geometry of our world?

jeffocal — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 09:53:43 +0000

In 1928 Paul Dirac developed through complex mathematical calculations a theory that integrated quantum mechanics, used to describe the subatomic world, with Einsteinâ€s Special Relativity, which says nothing travels faster than light.

However, he soon realized his equations not only worked for an electron with negative charge. It also worked for a particle that behaves like an electron with positive charge.

In other words, they predicted something entirely new to science â€“ antiparticles.
In 1932, Carl Anderson a professor at California Tech experimental confirmed their existence when he observed cosmic rays in a cloud chamber leaving a track which could have only been created by something with a positively charged, and with the same mass as an electron.”

However, even though the environment containing antimatter is defined only in terms of the abstract prosperities of mathematics its existence can tell us a great deal about the physical geometry of our universe.

For example, Einstein’s theories make very specific predictions based on the existence of a single space-time environment that if found not to occur would invalidate it.

For example, his theory tells us that light should bend as it passes by a massive object.

If this was not observed his theory would have to be discarded.

However, 1919 Arthur Eddington lead an expedition to photograph the total eclipse of the Sun. The photographs revealed stars whose light had passed near sun had been bent exactly as Einstein had predicted. The experiment was repeated in 1922 with another eclipse with the same confirmation.

Additionally in past century, since he proposed his theory there has not been any observations of our macroscopic universe that disagree with any of its predictions.

Even so this does not mean that we should assume that our universe is physically made up of four dimensional space-time because, as with all multidimensional theories when Einstein derived the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of the constant velocity of light he also define another one with identical properties in terms of four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words, by defining the geometric properties of space-time in terms of the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining its time related properties in terms of only four *spatial* dimensions.

As was mentioned earlier the fact that light bends as it passes by massive objects does not mean our universe is made up of four dimensional space-time because the symmetry of equations used to make that prediction also predicts one made up of only four *spatial* dimensions will do the same.

Therefore, the fact that light bends as it passes by a mass cannot be used to eliminate that possibility.

However, there is an experiment very similar to the one Arthur Eddington preformed that would resolve this ambiguity.

Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity tells us that objects that create gravitational field cause time to “move” slower. However, due to the symmetry of his equations one could also say that time slowing down results in the formation of a gravitational field. Therefore, one must assume that a gravitational field must always be attractive because observations indicate that the passage of time can only be slowed not accelerated.

However, the fact that one can use Einsteinâ€s equations to qualitatively and quantitatively redefine the energy he associated with gravity in terms of four *spatial* dimensions means as was done in the article â€œDefining energy?â€ Nov 27, 2007 that it can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension as well as one in a space-time dimension.

However, unlike time, which is observed to only move in one direction forward observations tell us that we can move in spatially in two directions up down or backwards and forwards.

Therefore, if and only if the universe was made up of four *spatial* dimensions could there exist a form of mass that posses a negative gravitational potential.

One candidate for such a mass is antimatter. We know from observations that in it has an electrical charge that is oppositely directed from its matter counterpart. Therefore, it is possible that it has a gravitational field that is oppositely directed from that of ordinary matter.

An experiment has been proposed that could determine if this is indeed true.

As describe in the New Scientist article “Antimatter mysteries 3: Does antimatter fall up?” Apr 29, 2009, it involves using uncharged particles to prevent electromagnetic forces from drowning out gravitational effects. It will first build highly unstable pairings of electrons and positrons, known as positronium, then excite them with lasers to prevent them annihilating too quickly. Clouds of antiprotons will rip these pairs apart, stealing their positrons to create neutral antihydrogen atoms.

Pulses of these anti-atoms shot horizontally through two grids of slits will create a fine pattern of impact and shadow on a detector screen. By measuring how the position of this pattern is displaced, the strength – and direction – of the gravitational force on antimatter can be measured.

In other words, there is an experiment that could determine if our universe is physically composed of four dimensional space-time or four *spatial* dimensions because as was mentioned earlier a universe physically composed of four dimensional space-time cannot support a negative gravitational potential while one made up of four *spatial* dimensions can.

Yet if found to be true it does not mean that Einstein’s theories are invalid because his theories and predictions were based on pure mathematics and as mentioned earlier a universe consisting of four dimensional space-time and four *spatial* dimensional are mathematically are equivalent in every respect.

However, it would require us to rethink our understanding of the physical geometry of our universe and the causality of gravitational forces.

Later Jeff

The post What antimatter can tell us about the geometry of our world? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Space-time or four spatial dimensions?

jeffocal — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:00:51 +0000

There are many theories that attempt to explain what we observed in our three dimensional environment in terms of higher dimensions. However they all suffer from the same problem in that the existence of those higher dimensions are primarily based on abstract on mathematical models. The reason is because we as three dimensional beings are only able to observe objects in the three-dimensional environments we occupy. Therefore we must rely on mathematics to guide us in understanding how their existence influences what we observe in our world.

Many feel the most promising is called string theory, which attempts to define all of the observed properties of our universe in as many as ten dimensions.
However, as is pointed out on page 51 of Lee Smolin book “The Trouble with Physics” all attempts at unifying physics through extra dimensions suffer from the same problem. There are a few solutions that lead to the world we observe but there are many which do not. One has to set the initial conditions, which are found by observing our world to determine which solutions define what we observe. The use of this circular methodology means its validity is not based on its theoretical structure but on its flexibility.

In other words its validity is not based on connecting the observed properties of our environment to it but the randomly picking which the ones do the best job.

Einstein’s theories are very different in that they make specific predictions based on the existence of a single space-time environment that if found not to occur would invalidate it.

For example his theory tells us that light should bend as it passes by a massive object.

If this was not observed his theory would have to be discarded.

However 1919 Arthur Eddington lead an expedition to photograph the Total Eclipse of the Sun. The photographs revealed stars whose light had passed near sun had been bent exactly as Einstein had predicted. The experiment was repeated in 1922 with another eclipse with the same confirmation.

Additionally in past century since he proposed his theory there has not been any observations of our macroscopic universe that disagree with any of its predictions.

Even so this does not mean that we should assume that our universe is physically made up of four dimensional space-time because as with all multidimensional theories when Einstein derived the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of the constant velocity of light he also define another one with identical properties in terms of four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words by defining the geometric properties of space-time in terms of the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining its time related properties in terms of only four *spatial* dimensions.

As was mentioned earlier the fact that light bends as it passes by massive objects doers not mean our universe is made up of four dimensional space-time because the symmetry of equations used to make that prediction also predicts one made up of only four *spatial* dimensions will do the same.

Therefore the fact that light bends as it passes by a mass cannot be used to eliminate that possibility.

However there is a experiment very similar to the one Arthur Eddington preformed that would resolve this ambiguity.

Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity tells that objects that create gravitational field cause time to “move” slower. However due to the symmetry of his equations one could also say that time slowing down results in the formation of a gravitational field. Therefore one must assume that a gravitational field must always be attractive because observations indicate that time only moves in one direction forward.

However the fact that one can use Einsteinâ€s equations to qualitatively and quantitatively redefine the energy he associated with gravity in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is one bases for assuming as was done in the article â€œDefining energy?â€ Nov 27, 2007 that it can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension as well as one in a space-time dimension.

However unlike time which is observed to only move in one direction forward observations tell us that we can move in spatially in two directions up down backwards and forwards.

Therefore if the universe was made up of four *spatial* dimensions there should exist a form of mass that posses a negative gravitational potential.

One candidate for such a mass is antimatter. We know from observations that in it posses an opposite electrical charge than its matter counterpart. Therefore it is logical to assume that it posses a gravitational field that is oppositely directed from that of matter.

An experiment has be proposed that could determine if this is indeed true.

In other words there is an experiment that could determine if our universe is physically composed of four dimensional space time or four *spatial* dimensions because as was mentioned earlier a universe physically composed of four dimensional space-time cannot support a negative gravitational potential while one made up of four spatial dimensions can.

Yet if found to be true it does not mean that Einstein’s theories are invalid because his theories and predictions were based on pure mathematics and as mentioned earlier a universe consisting of four dimensional space-time and four spatial dimensional are mathematically are equivalent in every respect.

However it would require us to rethink our understanding of the physical geometry of our universe and the causality of gravitational forces.

Later Jeff

The post Space-time or four *spatial* dimensions? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Should we let our imaginations define reality?

jeffocal — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 14:15:38 +0000

or should we let “reality” define our imagination.

Unfortunately many physicists attempt to define reality based solely on what they measure and do not attempt to conceptually integrate those measurements into the realty we see around us.

One example can be found in Brian Clegg book Before the Big Bang: The Prehistory of Our Universe (p. 137) where he describes how Neils Bohr reacted when Heisenberg proposed his uncertainty principal.
“When Heisenberg first told his boss, Neils Bohr, about the uncertainty principle, he put it across in the form of an imaginary microscope. He described a particle as an electron passing through a make-believe ultra powerful microscope. We use light to examine the object, so a beam of photons (quantum particles just as the electron is) is constantly crashing into the electron. The result is that the electronâ€s path is changed. You canâ€t look at a quantum particle without changing things. Heisenberg is said to have been reduced to tears when Bohr ripped his idea to pieces. Heisenberg had assumed that until the microscope scanned the electron, the electron had an exact position and momentum. He thought it was the process of observing it that messed things up. But actually, Bohr pointed out, the uncertainty was more fundamental than that. There was no need to observe the electron for uncertainty to apply: it was inherent to the nature of a quantum particle.”

In other words Neils Bohr said that because we will never be able to observe an electron without changing it or its environment one must simply accept the fact that we will never be able to understand why it behaves the way it does in terms of the “reality” we see around us.

However the science of physics is defined as “the asking fundamental questions regarding how and why matter and energy interact while demanding the answers be validated by observations.

Yet this definition appears to conflict with Neils Bohr assertion that the uncertainty principal is inherent to the nature of a quantum particle because that immunizes it from such questions.

Additionally he said since it is true that uncertainty principal is inherent to the nature of the unseen world of a quantum particle “Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real”.

Yet if one uses his philosophy that “reality” does not exist then the observations used to define that principal also cannot be real or exist because one cannot observe something that does not exist. In other words the very arguments Neils Bohr uses to support his concept of the uncertainty principal leads to it invalidation.

However history has shown us that one of the advantages to defining the universe that we cannot and will never be able to see in terms of the “reality” of our observable environment is that it limits the ability of our imagination to create nonexistent or fantasy worlds to support them.

For example Einstein mathematically derived the force of gravity in terms of a curvature in a four dimensional space-time universe. However even though he knew that he would never be able to physically observe how a time dimension interacts with the three spatial dimensions he attempted and succeeded in explaining how a curvature in a space-time environment can result in the force gravity by watching how a marble moved on a curved surface in our observable three dimensional universe.

In other words Einstein not only mathematically quantified the measurements of the force of gravity but he also provided a qualitative explanation of how it could act at distance by anchoring it to the observable properties of an object moving on a curved surface in three-dimensional environment.

This methodology is in sharp contrast to how Newton defined gravity in that he simply accepted the fact that he was able to accurately quantify it using the concept of action at a distance even though he was aware that it disagreed, as the following excerpt from a letter he wrote to Bentley with the “reality” he saw around him.

â€œIt is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contactâ€¦That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.

However Einstein’s unwillingness to accept action at a distance gave him the ability more accurately quantify gravity while providing an understanding of how it could act at a distance by aqs mentioned earlier anchoring it to the “reality” of our three-dimensional environment. Additional it showed that Newton’s concept of absolute space and time only existed in the fantasy world of his imagination because according to Einstein gravity is caused by their variability.

This shows the power of attempting to understand the unobservable in terms of the observable by anchoring it to the “reality” of what we see around us and why we should be skeptical about accepting the validity of the uncertain principal based on Neils Bohr assertion that it is inherent to the nature of a quantum particle

However what is even more damaging to his ideology of blindly accepting a mathematical interpretation of the uncertainty principle, is that it is possible (much as Einstein did) to extrapolate the observable properties of our three dimensional environment to a quantum one as was done in the article “A classical interpretation of Heisenbergâ€s Uncertainty Principal” Dec. 1 2012 to explain and predict how and why it behaves the way it does.

However before we begin we must first reformulate Einstein space-time concept to their spatial equivalent.

(The reason will become obvious latter)

Einstein gave use the ability to do this when he used the constant velocity of light in the equation E=mc^2 to define the geometry properties of space-time because it provided a method of converting a unit of space-time he associated with energy to a unit of space he associated with mass. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative and qualitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words by defining the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of mass/energy and the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining his space-time universe as was done in the article â€œThe â€œRelativityâ€ of four spatial dimensionsâ€ in terms of geometry of only four *spatial* dimensions.

On advantage to doing this is that it gives one a different perspective on the “reality” of the quantum environment and the uncertainty principal in terms of the observable properties of our three dimensional universe.

For example the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 demonstrated it is possible to understand the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass by extrapolating the laws of classical resonance in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would be meet by a matter wave in four *spatial* dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital. This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established in four *spatial* dimensions.

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its resonant or a harmonic of its resonant frequency.

Therefore the discrete or quantized energy of resonant systems in a continuous field of four spatial dimensions could explain the discrete quantized quantum mechanical properties of particles.

However, it does not explain how the boundaries of a particleâ€s resonant structure are defined.

In classical physics, a point on the two-dimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface. However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to three-dimensional space.

Similarly an object occupying a volume of three-dimensional space would be confined to it however, it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate “up” or “down” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The confinement of the “upward” and “downward” oscillations of a three-dimension volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is what defines the geometric boundaries of the “box” containing the resonant system the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” associated with a particle and why quantum systems behave the way they do.

However not only using the properties of a fourth *spatial* dimension allow one to understand why energy/mass in our three-dimensional world in terms of our experiences but it can also be used to explain the uncertainty principle

For example in quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle asserts that there a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x and momentum p, can be simultaneously known.

As mentioned earlier one can define a mechanism responsible of the uncertainty principal in terms the geometry of the four *spatial* dimensions because Quantum Mechanics mathematically defines the position and momentum of a particle in terms of non dimensional point. This means there would be an uncertainty in determining its position because that point could be found anywhere within the volume of the “box” mentioned above.

Similarly there would be an uncertainty in measuring its momentum, again because quantum mechanics defines it in terms of a non dimensional point. Therefore before one could determine a particle’s momentum one would have to know the exact position of the “end” points one uses to measure its velocity. However, as mentioned above that non dimension point representing a particle could be found anywhere in the box containing the resonant structure that defined a particle in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“ Therefore one could not determine its exact velocity and momentum because there will always be an uncertainty as to where the non dimensional point representing a particle is in the box when the measurement was taken

The reason why one cannot simultaneously measure both with complete accuracy is because the act of measure its momentum or position requires one to access different segments the “box” containing particle.

For example if one wants to make the most accurate measurement possible of its momentum internal to the box one would have to measure the time it took for it to transverse a given segment of it. However this means that one could not determine its position because it would be changing throughout the entire time that it took it to transverse that portion of the box.

However if one wanted to make the most accurate measurement possible of its position internal to the box it would have to be stationary with respect to the box’s geometry meaning that one could not determine its monument because it would not be moving. Since these two measurements required one to access different segments of a particles geometry they are mutually exclusive.

Therefore one cannot simultaneously measure a particle position x and momentum p with complete accuracy.

This defines why, in terms of the reality we see around us there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x and momentum p, can be simultaneously known.

However it also tells us we should always attempt to conceptually integrate our theoretical models into the “reality” of what we “see” around us because it allows one to physically connect the abstract properties of a theoretical environment created by our imagination to the reality of the worlds they are describing thereby limiting its ability to create fantasy worlds such as the one Neils Bohr believed in to explain their theoretical models.

Later Jeff

The post Should we let our imaginations define reality? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Finding the graviton

jeffocal — Mon, 01 Jul 2013 10:35:20 +0000

One of the biggest problems in theoretical cosmology is understanding why we have been unable to observe the Graviton or the quantum of gravitational force. Some have attributed this to the fact that its interaction with matter is not strong enough to be detected by modern instrumentation.

However the reason may be because gravity is not propagated by a particle such as a photon but by field properties of space.

The currently accepted view among most cosmologist and physicist is that all forces mediated by particles. This viewpoint is support the success the Standard Model of Particle Physics has had in explaining and predicting the observed properties of electromagnetic energy, weak, and strong nuclear forces in terms of particles. It makes very accurate and verifiable predictions of the nature and causality of those forces in terms of particle interactions.

However it falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions because it cannot or does not incorporate the full theory of gravitation as described by General Relativity. This is because Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity derives gravity in terms of a continuous curvature in the field properties of four-dimensional space-time and not in terms of the discontinuous properties of the quantum.

This fact makes it extremely difficult to conceptually integrate them because something that is discontinuous cannot be by definition continuous.
However it may be possible to integrate gravity with the particle properties of the forces defined in the Standard Model if instead of assuming they are propagated by particles one assumes that the particle properties of all forces are propagated by the fields.

It is easier to explain the mechanism responsible for creating the gravity or quantum of gravitational force by redefine Einstein’s space-time universe into one consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions.

(The reason will become obvious latter in the article)

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he used he used equation of E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to defined gravity in terms geometric properties of space-time because it allows one to convert a unit of time in his space-time universe to a unit of space. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it is possible to defined a one to one correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words by defining the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining his space-time universe in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.

However it allows one to define a physical mechanism that would responsible creating a particle or quanta of space-time in terms of the field properties of four *spatial* dimensions.

For example the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 showed it is possible to explain the discontinuous properties of space by extrapolating the laws classical resonance in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave on a continuous “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established in four *spatial* dimensions.

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its resonant or a harmonic of its resonant frequency

Therefore these discrete or quantized energy of resonant systems in a field consisting of four *spatial* dimensions would be responsible for the particle characteristics the standard model associates with the propagation of gravity electromagnetic energy, weak, and strong nuclear forces.

However, it does not explain how or why we observed them in terms of discontinuous properties of a particle instead of the continuous properties of a field as the above theoretical model and Einstein Theories predicts we should.

In classical physics, a point on the two-dimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface. However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to three-dimensional space.

The confinement of the “upward” and “downward” oscillations of a three-dimension volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension defines the mechanism responsible for the quantization of the field properties of space associated with energy/mass in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“.

Quantum mechanics defines the smallest possible unit of space and increment of energy in terms of Planck’s length “h” while defining the size of an individual quantum of force in terms of the equation E = h c / L.

In other words the physical size of the fundamental quanta of all forces is not the same as is suggest by the Standard Model of Particle Physics and quantum mechanics but varies with their energy and the higher energy there is the smaller its volume.

However this means the length and therefore the volume of a Graviton would be considerably larger when compared to the volume associated with a quantum unit of the electromagnetic weak or strong forces because of its relatively low energy content with respect to theirs.

The theoretical evidence to support this conclusion is provided by the fact that the energy of a quantum of force is mathematically defined by its frequency and wavelength. This means a higher energy particle with a shorter wavelength would occupy a smaller volume than lower energy ones.

Observational evidence can be found in the fact that quanta of the strong and weak forces can only be observe in particle accelerators capable of generating the energy required to magnify their environment enough to allow for us to observe them.

In other words the reason why we can observe quanta of the strong and weak forces is because we can create experimental apparatus that can magnify the environment to the point where they become visible.

While a quantum of a less energetic electromagnetic force associated with visible light is observable because it size is comparable to the size to the sensing apparatus in the cones and rods in the eyes use to detect it.

However electromagnetic forced is about a million billion billion billion billion (10^42) times stronger than gravitational.

Using the same logic one reason why we have been unable to observe a Graviton may be because we have been unable to construct an observing platform a million billion billion billion billion (10^42) larger than the one need to observe quanta of electromagnetic force of the same strength.

However the relatively large size of a Graviton or an individual quanta of gravity predicted by quantum mechanics suggests another reason why we have been unable to observe it.

We know from observations that gravitational forces act on much smaller scales than the physical size of an individual Graviton predicted by quantum mechanics. However this means that we should observe that the orbital energy of objects should also be quantized.

Some may disagree by saying that the size of the quantum unit of gravitational force is too small relative to the mass of objects that the effect of its quantization would be unobservable.

However the equation that defines the size of a Gravitron ( E = h c / L ) tells us that it would relatively large with respect to the orbits of many of the observable planets. Additionally the force of gravity is always attractive or only acts in one direction therefore the effects of its quantization would be cumulative

In other words if gravity is propagated by the graviton the cumulative effects over the life of the universe should be observable with the increased sensitivity and high resolution of modern instrumentation.

Therefore one must assume that Einstein was correct we he defined gravity in terms of its field and not the quantum properties of space-time because if it was propagated by the Graviton then quantum mechanics tells us due to its relative large size that we should have observed discrete regions of space where orbits of stars planets and moons are not found.

This strongly suggest the reason why we have been unable to observe a Graviton is because gravity is not propagated it but by the field properties of space.

Later Jeff

The post Finding the graviton appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

The causality of motion

jeffocal — Wed, 01 May 2013 10:05:57 +0000

According to Newtonâ€s view, force does not the cause motion but only a change in it and because a freely moving object continues to move inertia and motion in itself needs no causal explanation.

However as Gao, Shan points out in on page 29 of his book “God Does Play Dice with the Universe” there is a problem with that concept of motion because:

“According to Newton, neither external force nor internal force is the cause of constant motion. So there is only one possibility left , i.e., that motion has no cause. In other words the change in position or state of an object due to a constant velocity does not have cause.
However modern science is based on the assumption that all changes in the state of a system require a cause. In other words one cannot integrate the Newtonian concept of motion or the change in position associated with it into our current scientific paradigms which are based almost entirely on causality”.

Granted Einstein was able to define the causality of the energy associated with gravity and accelerated motion in terms of curvature in four dimensional space-time and the relativistic properties of motion in terms of that same four dimensional model however he was unable or did not chose to address what causality of the energy of constant motion.

One reason may have been that constant motion by definition does not change with time even though it is undergoing a change in spatial properties.

Therefore to understand its casualty one should define it with respect those properties and not those of time or a space-time dimension.

Fortunately Einstein gave us the ability to do this when used the equation E=mc^2 and the velocity of light to define the properties of energy in of space-time environment because it allows one to convert a unit of displacement he associated with it in a four dimensional space-time universe to an equivalent unit of spatial displacement in four *spatial* dimensions. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it is possible to defined a one to one correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words because he defined the geometric relationship between energy, mass, space and time in terms of the constant velocity of light means that one can quantitatively and qualitatively define a one to one between the properties of energy in a space-time universe to the physical properties of space four *spatial* dimensions.

The fact that one can use the Einstein’s equations to qualitatively and qualitatively derive the spatial properties of energy in a space-time universe in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is one bases for assuming, as was done in the article â€œDefining energy?â€ Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

One of the theoretical advantages to transposing Einstein space-time concepts to four *spatial* dimensions is that it allows one define a common mechanism for the causality of gravity, acceleration, inertia and constant motion.

For example the article “Why Space-time?” Sept. 27, 2007 showed the energy associated with rest mass is directly proportional to the magnitude of a curvature or “depression” in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. Additionally it was shown that one can derive the causality of all accelerations including gravitational in terms of an interaction of rest mass with the slope of a curvature in the “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth 8spatial* dimension caused by that displacement.

(This curvature is analogous to a curvature in a four-dimensional space-time manifold Einstein theorized was the causality of all accelerations.)

However as was shown in the article “Defining energy” there will be a 1 to 1 correspondence between an objects rest mass and the curvature in space associated with the energy required to make a unit change in its displacement with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. Therefore the inertia of an object, as is confirmed by observations would be directly proportional to its rest mass if one assumes as was done in that article that causality of both is related to a displacement caused by a curvature in “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to fourth *spatial* dimension. This allows one to define the causality of inertia in terms of an interaction of the rest mass of an object with a curvature in a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a four *spatial* dimensions.

This also to defines the causality of constant motion because according to the theoretical concepts presented in that article the energy associated with its momentum would be defined by a constant linear displacement of the depression associated with its rest mass in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Therefore motion will continue unchanged unless it interacts with the curved “surface” of three-dimensional space that article associated with accelerations. This allows one to define the casualty constant motion in terms of a linear or constant displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However it also enables one to define causality of the relative properties of constant motion because according to the concepts develop in that article the momentum of an object in motion would be determined by the relative separation its three-dimensional “surface” has with respect to the three-dimensional “surface” of the object or measuring device used to determine its velocity. In other words all motion is relative because its causality is directly related to the relative separation of its three-dimensional “surface” with respect to the three-dimension “surface” of another object or measuring device.

This defines a causal link between constant motion inertia, rest mass gravity and all accelerations in terms of an interaction of the “surfaces” of a three-dimensional space manifold and a fourth *spatial* dimension.

This shows how one can integrate the causality of a change in position associated with constant motion into our current scientific paradigms which are based almost entirely on causality and conceptually link it with Einstein’s concept of gravity and accelerate motion in terms of four *spatial* dimensions.

Later Jeff

The post The causality of motion appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

The illusion that is time.

jeffocal — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 10:48:39 +0000

Does time have a physical existence? If it does why are we not able point to it and say there it is? If it does not why do physicists define our universe in terms of its physical properties?
This question is relevant because Einstein theories, the foundation of modern cosmology are based on the physical existence of time or a space-time dimension.

Unfortunately there is absolutely no direct observational or experiment evidence supporting its physicality.

In fact one of the most persistent observations regarding time is that it is not directly perceived in terms of a physical entity such as matter or space but only as a measure of an irreversible physical, chemical, or biological change in a physical system.

However this suggests as was shown in the article “Defining what time is.” Sept 20, 2007 time may only be a non-physical measurement of the sequential ordering of a physical, chemical, or biological change in space similar how a unit of length is a non-physical measure of a change in the ordering of the position of an object in space. This is because similar to time, length is not perceived as matter or space but only as a non-physical measure of where an object is located with respect to a given point in space.

Yet this appears to contradict the assumption that time or a space-time dimension is or has the properties of a physical entity because as mentioned earlier most of us do not perceived it as having the physical properties of matter or space.

However, what is even more damaging to the concept that it has physical properties is that they are not required to define relativistic properties of our universe as many physics seem to think.

This is because Einstein gave us a way of converting a unit of time in a space-time dimension to unit of space in four *spatial* dimensions when he used the constant velocity of light to define its geometric properties. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

However using Einstein’s equations as is suggested above to redefine the universe in terms of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four dimension space-time would allow one to understand its relativistic properties in terms of the observable properties of the spatial dimensions while maintaining the same quantitative predictive powers as those associated with a space-time dimension because as mentioned earlier there is a one to one correspondence between them.

For example the article “Embedded dimensions” Oct 22, 2007 showed that one can derived all forms of energy including gravitational and kinetic in terms of a displacement or curvature in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension and why one must assume that kinetic energy is a result of an oppositely directed displacement in its “surface” than the one associated with gravity.

The conclusion that the causality of kinetic energy is a result of an oppositely directed displacement in a “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to the one associated with gravity is based on the observation that they are oppositely directed. For example, the kinetic energy of an orbiting satellite is oppositely directed with respect to the gravitational energy associated with the planet it is orbiting. Therefore, if one defines gravity in terms of a “depression” in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to fourth *spatial* dimension one should define kinetic energy in terms of a oppositely directed “elevation” in that “surface”.

However this means according the definitions given in the article “Embedded dimensions” the total energy/mass of an object would be equal to the sum of the displacements of a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold caused by the rest mass of an object and that caused by its relative velocity.

Therefore, the energy/mass of an object would be dependent on its relative motion because one must add the energy of its motion to its rest energy/mass.

This defines the mechanism responsible for why the energy/mass of an object increases when viewed by an observer who is in relative motion to it in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.

The following analogy can be used to understand and define the relativistic properties length and time

Assume that two “2 dimensional creaturesâ€ are living on the surface of two pieces of paper resting on a desktop.

Also, assume the two creatures can view the surfaces of the other piece of paper, which are separated a pencil.

If the diameter of the pencil is increased, the curvature between the surfaces of the two pieces of paper will increase.

Each of these creatures, when viewing the other piece of paper will only perceive the two-dimensional translation of the three-dimensional curvature generated by the pencil.

Therefore, each will view the distance between two points on the surface of the other as shorter since they will view that distance as a two-dimensional translation of a three-dimensional curvature in the surface of the paper and each will measure the distance between them on their piece of paper as being longer then they would if they viewed it on the other piece.

Similarly, because three-dimensional beings could only “view” a three-dimensional translation of a “curvature” or displacement in four *spatial* dimension caused by the motion of a reference frame they will measure distance or length in them as being longer than they would be if viewed as an observer who is not in relative motion to it.

The “movement” of â€œtimeâ€ on both surfaces will also be affected.

Each of the two dimensional creatures mentioned earlier will view the others â€œtimeâ€ as moving slower because the three-dimensional curvature in the paper makes the distance between events longer than the two dimensional translation of those events. Therefore, it will take longer for events “move” through the curvature in three-dimensional space relative to the time it would take for them to move along two dimension translation of that surface.

Earlier it was mentioned that the magnitude of the displacement or “curvature” an object generates in a fourth *spatial* dimension is dependent on its velocity.

However as mentioned earlier, we have defined time as only being the measure or the “distance between” the sequential ordering of the causality of an event.

Therefore time will become dilated in reference frames that are in motion because of the curvature generated in three-dimensional space by its relative motion, three-dimensional beings in that reference frame will view the distance between events to be longer in it than it would if they were in motion relative to it. Therefore, they will view time in a reference frame that is in motion relative to them as moving slower than if they were in that reference frame because events in those reference frames will have a greater separation.

The velocity of light is constant despite the relative motion of an observer because the foreshortening or shortening of the length or distance the light travels is proportional to the motion of the observer. Therefore, the velocity of light will be constant in all reference frames despite the relative velocities of the observers to those reference frames because velocity is defined in terms of distance divided by time.

It should be remember this scenario applies to all forms of energy including gravitational because, as the article â€œEmbedded dimensionsâ€ Oct. 22, 2007 showed, three-dimensional beings perceive energy in terms of the magnitude of a “curvature” in “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The Lorentz transformations derived from this theoretical model will take on the same form as the Lorentz transformations derived from Relativity.

This is because this theoretical model postulates that a displacement or curvature in “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold, with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by the gravitational or kinetic energy of an object is proportional to the velocity of light.

Therefore, because both Relativity and the above mechanism predict a physical shortening of length and a slowing of time are related to the geometry of space, the form of the Lorentz transformations associated with the foreshortening length and slowing of time will be identical for both of these models.

However, this theoretical model differs from that of Relativity’s in that it defines the magnitude of a foreshortening of length and a slowing or dilation of time in terms of a “curvature” in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension instead of curvature in four dimensional space-time manifold.

As mentioned earlier the article “Defining energy” derived the mechanism responsible for gravity in terms of a “curvature” in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However, it was shown earlier that a curvature in a “surface” of a three-dimension space manifold with respect to a four *spatial* dimension was responsible for length foreshortening and time dilation.

Therefore, because both gravitational and the kinetic energy of relative motion are derived from a common “curvature” in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension they will have a similar effect on physical properties of length and time.

This means both Relativity and this paper predict an observer in a gravitational field will measure the length of an object to be shorter and passage of time to be slower with respect to an observer who is located outside of a gravitational field.

However, as mentioned earlier this paper defines this shortening of length and slowing of time in a gravitational field in terms of four *spatial* dimension instead of four-dimensional space-time manifold.

The “relative” characteristics of a “curvature” in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension associated with kinetic and gravitational energy would also make it impossible for an observer to determine if an acceleration is caused by gravitational or kinetic energy such as that from an exhaust of a rockets engine.

This is because the mechanism defined above indicates the magnitude of a force associated with both gravitational and kinetic energy is related to the absolute magnitude of a “curvature” a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Therefore, because a three-dimensional observer can only observe the three-dimensional effects of a curvature in four *spatial* dimensions he or she could not determine whether he or she is in a gravitational field or an accelerated reference frame.

This means the concepts contained in this article would make identical qualitative and quantitative and predictions with respect to the relativistic properties of space and time and the inability to determine the casualty of acceleration in terms of the physical properties of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four dimensional space-time because they are based on the analytical and qualitative properties of Einstein’s experimentally verified equation E=mc^2.

As mentioned earlier the primary reason why most scientist assume the physicality of time or a space-time dimension is because the foundation of modern cosmology is based on the physical existence of time or Einstein’s space-time dimension.

Yet as this article shows one can make the same quantitative and qualitative predictions regarding them by assuming they are caused by a physical interaction between the third and fourth *spatial* dimension and not one made up of time.

However this article also suggests the reason why scientists are unable physically observe time or a space-time dimension is because its existence is based on the illusion that it is responsible for the relativistic properties of space, time and energy/mass.

Later Jeff

The post The illusion that is time. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Is time eternal?

jeffocal — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:05:06 +0000

Is time an eternity or does it have a beginning and end?

This question is very difficult to answer because current theories are only able to describe what happened after the beginning of our universe. In other words how the universe came about and whether there is any meaning to a “before” or “after” is unknown and perhaps unknowable. Therefore many believe it is not possible to determine if time began at the moment of its inception or if it had its beginnings in a previous epic.

The reason is because the most popular theories of its origin assume that it emerged from a singularity or one dimensional point and is expanding from the tremendously hot dense plasma environment associated with it. This Big Bang theory, as this concept has come to be called assumes the momentum generated by the heat of that environment is sustaining the expansion.

Unfortunately for those looking for an answer to the question as to the eternity of time, the laws of physics cannot be applied to a singularity therefore it is impossible to use them to understand what may have happened in the period before the universe was formed.

However this may not be true because using the currently accepted laws of physics one can project observations made in our present time backwards to the show that it may not have had its beginning in a singularity.

For example observations in “our time” tell us when a star supernova explodes it expels hot gas. However scientists know that a star existed before that event occurred because they can project the laws of physics governing the expanding hot gases backwards to define a period before it took place. In other words they can determine what existed before an event occurred such as a supernova by projecting their understanding the process that happened after it backwards to the period before it took place.
Yet there are many observations like those associated with the expanding gases of supernova that suggest that our universes expansion did not begin form a one dimensional point or a singularity as the Big Bang models assumes but from an extended three-dimensional volume of space.

The difference between a theoretical model based on these “real time” observations and the mathematical model supporting the existence of a singularity is because, as mentioned earlier science cannot project the laws of physics beyond a mathematically predicted singularity but can through a three-dimensional volume.

Therefore using a theoretical model based on observations of a three-dimensional environment means that science could predict the existence of time before the beginning of our universe by projecting the currently accepted laws of physics beyond the three-dimensional volume that it suggests its expansion began from.

For example one of the most fundament and verifiable observations in science is that the total quantity of energy/mass in a closed system is conserved and that it cannot be created or destroyed. Since, by definition our universe is a closed system according to its energy/mass cannot be created or destroyed in it.

Yet we know from observations the equation E=mc^2 defines the equivalence between mass and energy in an environment and since mass is associated with the attractive properties of gravity it also tells us the kinetic energy associated with the universe’s expansion also possess those attractive properties. Therefore the law of conservation of energy/mass tells us that in a closed system the creation of kinetic energy cannot exceed the gravitational energy associated with the total energy/mass in the universe.

However, not all of the energy of associated with the universeâ€s expansion is directed towards it because of the random motion of its energy/mass components. For example, observations indicate that some stars and galaxies are moving towards not away us. Therefore, not all of the energy present at the time of its origin is directed towards its expansion.

As mentioned earlier the law of conservation of energy/mass tells us that gravitational contractive properties of the universe’s energy/mass cannot exceed its kinetic energy equivalent at time the expansion of the universe began. However because some of the kinetic energy of its components is not directed towards its expansion the total gravitational contractive properties of its energy/mass must exceed the kinetic energy of its expansive components. Therefore, at some point in time the gravitation contractive potential of its energy/mass must exceed the kinetic energy of its expansion because as just mentioned not all of its kinetic energy is directed towards its expansion. Therefore at that point, in time the universe will have to enter a contractive phase.

Some may disagree by saying that as the universe expands its energy is spread out over a larger volume so after a while it just vanishes so to speak or as some like to say the universe experiences a heat death. However Einstein theories do not permit energy to just disappear or “die”. It unequivocally tells us that if the kinetic energy content in a closed environment decreases as it cools the mass content of that environment must increase irrespective of the volume of that environment. Therefore because by definition the universe is a closed system one must assume that any reduction in its overall energy content of the universe including its heat energy must be must be compensated for by an increase in its total attractive gravitational mass content.

Others would disagree because recent observations suggest that a force called Dark energy is causing the expansion of the universe accelerate. Therefore they believe that its expansion will continue forever. However, as was shown in the article “Dark Energy and the evolution of the universe” if one assumes the law of conservation of mass/energy is valid, as we have done here than the gravitational contractive properties of its mass equivalent will eventually exceed its expansive energy associated with dark energy and therefore the universe must at some time in the future enter a contractive phase.

We also know from observations that heat is generated when we compress a gas and that this heat creates pressure that opposes further contractions.

Similarly the contraction of the universe will create heat which will oppose its further contractions.

Therefore the velocity of contraction of our universe will increase until the momentum of the galaxies, planets, components of the universe equals the radiation pressure generated by the heat of its contraction.

At this point in time the total kinetic energy of the collapsing universe would be equal to the radiation pressure associated with the heat of its collapse. From this point on its contraction will be maintained by the momentum associated with the remaining mass component of the universe.

However, after a certain point in time the radiation pressure generated by it will become great enough to ionize its mass component and to cause it to reexpand.

This will result in the universe entering an expansive phase and going through another age of recombination when the comic background radiation was emitted and the recreation of the particle mass that latter is responsible for the development of stars and galaxies. This is because the expansive forces associated with the radiation pressure caused by its collapse will exceed the contractive forces associated with the remaining mass of the universe. The reason it will experience an age of recombination as it passes through each cycle is because the heat of its collapse would be great enough to completely ionize all forms of matter.

However, at some point in time the contraction phase will begin again because as mentioned earlier its kinetic energy cannot exceed the gravitational energy associated with the total mass/energy in the universe.

Since the universe is a closed system, the amplitude of the expansions and contractions will remain constant because the law of conservation of mass/energy dictates the total mass and energy in a closed system remains constant.

This results in the universe experiencing in a never-ending cycle of expansions and contractions of equal magnitudes.

As mentioned earlier many cosmologists do not accept the cyclical scenario of expansion and contractions because they believe a collapsing universe would end in the formation of a singularity similar to the ones found in a black hole and therefore, it could not re-expand.

However, according to the first law of thermodynamic the universe would have to begin expanding before it reached a singularity because that law states that energy in an isolated system can neither be created nor destroyed

Therefore because the universe is by definition an isolated system; the energy generated by its gravitational collapse cannot be radiated to another volume but must remain within it. This means the radiation pressure exerted by its collapse must eventually exceed momentum of its contraction and the universe would have to enter an expansion phase because its momentum will carry it beyond the equilibrium point were the radiation pressure is greater that the momentum of its mass. This will cause the mass/energy of the universe to oscillate around a point in space.

This would be analogous to the how momentum of a mass on a spring causes it spring to stretch beyond its equilibrium point resulting it osculating around it.

There can be no other interoperation if one assumes the validity of the first law of thermodynamics which states that the total energy of the universe is defined of mass and the momentum of its components. Therefore, when one decreases the other must increase and the universe must oscillate around a point in space if it does enter a contraction phase.

The reason a singularity can form in black hole is because it is not an isolate system therefore the thermal radiation associated with its collapse can be radiated into the surrounding space. Therefore, its collapse can continue because momentum of its mass can exceed the radiation pressure cause by its collapse in the volume surrounding a black hole.

As mentioned earlier the heat generated by the collapse of the universe would raise the temperature to a point where electrons would be strip off all matter and it would become ionized, making it opaque to radiation. It would remain that way until it entered the expansion phase and cooled enough to allow matter to recapture and hold on to them. This Age of Recombination, as cosmologists like to call it is when the Cosmic Background Radiation was emitted.

One could quantify this scenario by using the first law of thermodynamics to calculate the temperature of the universe when the radiation pressure generated by the gravitational collapse of the universe exceeds the momentum of that collapse and see if it is great enough to cause another with the Age or Recombination as it must to account for the observed properties of the Cosmic back ground radiation.

As mentioned earlier using the above theoretical model scientists can predict the existence of time before the beginning and after the end of our present universe by projecting the currently accepted laws of physics beyond the three-dimensional volume that it suggests it began and will end in.

However this also tells us that the time we experienced is an integral part of our universe because one can trace its origins through the laws of physics to previous and future epics of universe creation.

But it also tells us that that time does not exist eternally to our universe because the laws of physics we use to define how it progresses from the past to the future cannot be exported to an environment outside of it.

Therefore, one cannot ask when or at what time these cycles of expansions or contractions began or will end because, as just mentioned the time we experience only exists in our universe.

This means we must consider the time we experience as eternal because there is no meaning to asking when those cycles of expansion and contractions began or will end with respect to the existence of our universe because they are part of it.

Later Jeff

The post Is time eternal? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Linking gravitational and electrical forces

jeffocal — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:25:51 +0000

Richard Feynman on pages 24 and 25 of his book â€œThe Character of Physical Lawsâ€ describes how both gravitational and electrical forces are linked in terms of a common relationship with respect to the inverse square law.
“The inverse square law appears again in the electrical laws, for instance, electricity also exerts forces inversely as the square of the distance, this time between charges, and one thinks perhaps that the inverse square of distance has some deep significance.Â No one has ever succeeded in making electricity and gravity different aspects of the same thing.”

Later he talks about the ratio of gravitational attraction to electrical repulsions:

“The ratio of the gravitational attraction to electrical repulsions is given by a number with 42 digits tailing off.Â (The exact number was given in a diagram as Gravitation attraction / Electrical repulsion = 1/(4.17 X 10^42) Now therein lies a very deep mystery.Â Where could such a tremendous number come from?Â If you ever had a theory, from which both of these things are to come how could they come in such disproportion?Â What equation has a solution which has for two kinds of forces an attraction and repulsion with that fantastic ratio.”

However, one may be able to show that gravity and electricity are different aspect of the same thing and derive “this fantastic ratio” if one extrapolates the laws of classical physics in a three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension as done in this blog.

Because as the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 showed one can derive the quantum mechanical properties of electrical forces by extrapolating the laws governing resonance in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave moving on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

There are four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical Newtonian environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give the “surface” of three-dimensional space (the substance) the ability to oscillate spatially between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

Therefore, these bi-directional oscillations in a “surface” of a three dimensional space would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in space.

Observations of a three-dimensional environment show us the energy associated with resonant system can only take on the incremental or discreet values associated with a fundamental or a harmonic of the fundamental frequency of its environment.

Similarly the energy associated with resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions could only take on the incremental or discreet values associated a fundamental or a harmonic of the fundamental frequency of its environment.

This shows that one can understand the origins of the quantum mechanical properties of an electromagnetic wave in terms of classical mechanics if one assumes that it is a matter wave moving on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth “spatial” dimension.

However as the article “The Photon: a matter wave?” Oct. 1, 2007 one can also understand the origins electrical forces and their quantum mechanical properties by extrapolating the laws of classical wave mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave moving on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect toÂ fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly a wave on the two-dimensional surface of water causes a point on that surface to be become displaced or rise above or below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present. A force will be developed by the differential displacement of the surfaces, which will result in the elevated and depressed portions of the water moving towards or become “attracted” to each other and the surface of the water.

Therefore, classical wave mechanics, if extrapolated to four *spatial* dimensions tells us a force would be developed by the differential displacements caused by a matter wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension which will result in its elevated and depressed portions moving towards or become “attracted” to each other.

This would define the causality of the attractive forces of unlike charges associated with the electromagnetic wave component of a photon because it tells us a force would be developed by a differential displacement of a point on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

One can define the causality of electrical component of an electromagnetic wave in terms of the energy associated with the “peaks” and “troughs” that is directed perpendicular to its velocity vector while its magnetic component would be associated with the horizontal force developed by that perpendicular displacement.

This is analogous to how the vertical force pushing up of on mountain also generates a horizontal force, which pulls matter horizontally towards from the apex of that displacement.

This shows how one can understand electric and magnetic forces by extrapolating laws of classical mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The reason why electromagnetic forces are quantized is because as mentioned earlier its energy is propagated through space in quantized resonant systems defined in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?”

However as the article “Gravity in four *spatial* dimensions” Dec. 15, 2007 showed one also can derive gravitational forces in terms of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension by extrapolating the laws of classical physics in a three-dimensional environment to a fourth “spatial” dimension

One can understand how by comparing the forces on objects would experience in four *spatial* dimensions to those experienced by a marble on a rubber diaphragm with a rod pushing down it.

The surface of the diaphragm will represent the “surface” of three-dimensional space the marble, the energy/mass of an object and the rod will represent the â€œWâ€ axis of a fourth *spatial* dimension.

(The “W” axis of the fourth *spatial* dimension was defined in the article “Embedded dimensions Oct. 27, 2007″)

If the end of the rod is orientated perpendicular to the “surface” of the diaphragm and is allowed to touch it without putting any pressure on it, the surface of the diaphragm will remain flat. The marble on the flat diaphragm would not move.

However, if pressure is applied to the rod, the “surface” of the diaphragm will become displaced and will no longer be perpendicular to the rod.

Gravitational forces will then have a tangential component along the displacement in the “surface” of the rubber diaphragm. The tangential component of the gravitational force directed along the “surface” of the diaphragm will cause the marble to move towards the apex of the depression

Similarly objects interacting with a displacement in “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension will experience a differential force directed towards the apex of that curvature. This force is called gravity.

(This curvature is analogous to the space-time curvature or displacement Einstein postulated is responsible for gravity.)

This would make gravitational and electrical forces different aspects of the same thing because it defines both in terms of the physical properties of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a four *spatial* dimensions.

However, they also share a common property defined by the E=mc^2 because it defines the ratio of all forms of energy including electrical to the gravitational energy contained in mass.

If true one should be able to define a mechanism responsible for why “The ratio of the gravitational attraction to electrical repulsions is given by a number with 42 digits tailing off” in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and the fact that they are both have a common origin in a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Solving the equation E=m*c^2 for “m” gives m=E/c^2. This would define the ratio of electrical to its gravitational energy/mass equivalent because as mentioned earlier it defines the ratio of electrical to the gravitational energy associated with mass.

The law of gravitation states that the forces between two objects is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them or m x m/d^2

If one then substitutes E/c^2 for â€œmâ€ in that equation one gets F=(E/c^2)^2/r^2.Â This would define the ratio of the attractive properties of gravity to the repulsive properties of electrical energy in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.

Using 3.0 x 10^10 cm/sec for the speed of light (c) and substituting we obtain for the ratio of electrical to gravitation forces to be F=E/(3.010^10 cm/sec)^4/r^2 or F=E/(8.1X 10^41 cm/sec).

This value represents the ratio of â€œGravitation attraction / Electrical repulsionâ€ Richard Feynman was referring to in the earlier quote from his book â€œThe Character of Physical Lawsâ€ because it numerically defines the ratio of gravitational to electrical forces.

The theoretical result of 1/8.1 X 10^41 differs from the experimental value of 1/(4.17 X 10^42) because the equation of E=mc^2 that defines the ratio between gravitational and electrical energy tells us that some of the electrical energy in a system is derived from its mass or gravitational component.Â Therefore, one must subtract the quantity of the gravitational equivalent of the electrical forces associated with that mass from the above derived value to obtain the experimental value.

Therefore it appears one can solved the â€œvery deep mysteryâ€ as to why the inverse square law can be applied to both gravitational and electric forces by â€œmaking electricity and gravity different aspects the same thingâ€ if one assume as we have done they are both caused by a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension and answers Mr. Feynman’s question as to “how could they (gravitational and electrical forces) come in such disproportion”.

Later Jeff

The post Linking gravitational and electrical forces appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.