JOHN C. GONSOWSKI —
The problem I have with your model is that you effectively have the photon doing the graviton's job of rotations, boosts, and translations. I just can't picture that. My favorite model is from a friend of Ark's but that doesn't mean Ark is into that model any more than yours. I still think Ark's friend giving me a link to Ark's site was the best thing anyone did for me in this lifetime.
WÓJEK ZIGGY —
It is an excellent point, John. I fully agree. This still needs to be worked out.
I conjecture magnetic field to be propagation medium, so perhaps it would be a virtual photon that does the job?
Let's say the above is the weakest part of my hypothesis. The strongest part would be the results from CERN, about 5 years from now. John, assuming antihydrogen would antigravitate at CERN, along what lines would you try to explain it?
" I still think Ark's friend giving me a link to Ark's site was the best thing anyone did for me in this lifetime."
I feel happy for you, John. Whatever works best for you. I am only interested in empirical truth, and not in being right, as opposed to someone else being wrong as compared with me. I consider it a waste of time.
JOHN GONSOWSKI —
If antihydrogen antigravitates, I would tend to think it is somehow traveling in a T-duality exotic spacetime, but I would have no idea how it is doing that. I do think even for Ark's model that a conformal graviton and longitudinal photon are exactly the same degrees of freedom so I do think in general Maxwell's equations effectively mix gravitons and photons but I still kind of picture the photons, gravitons, and graviphotons (virtual photons/vector gravitons) as separate and not really hanging out together in the same places (but obviously we are all picturing things where experiments haven't gone yet). Even for Ark and Laura's channeling on a Ouija board, they know whatever hints they get have to be checked out. We are all seeking truth even when the empirical part has lots of catching up to do.
WÓJEK ZIGGY —
For now, graviton is an educated guess, a placeholder to be filled with more hard facts as they hopefully come later. At the moment I take graviton as a general idea, not as an actual quantum particle. I have heard mainstream opinion that should graviton physically exist, it would be far, far beyond our experimental methods of detection.
I think Maxwell's equations effectively mix gravitons and photons, but I still kind of picture the photons, gravitons, and gravito-photons as separate. [...] the graviton's job of rotations, boosts, and translations.
Good point, again. If you are not familiar with the Fedorov-Imbert controversy, it is briefly described in the middle of this page :
The lesson from Fedorov-Imbert controversy is that photon can do more than we were initially led to believe. Perhaps we could think of a "gravito-photon" not as a particle, but rather as a function being performed.
According to my conjecture, gravity is not a fundamental force, but rather it results from a proper combination of the following three flexible factors :
- angular momentum
- electric dipole moment
- magnetic moment
and therefore, there will be no actual quantum particle, like "graviton", and no gravitational field either, but rather instead of such a particle and field, it will be a function of complex magnetic fields. I imagine it to be performed by magnetic vortex tubes, which are well known. Complex magnetic fields are extremely, extremely flexible and capable of performing jaw-dropping tricks :
Therefore, in response to your valid concern :
The problem I have with your model is that you effectively have the photon doing the graviton's job of rotations, boosts, and translations.
I would like to reiterate that not only that photon carries a simple angular momentum, but it can also have an orbital angular momentum, and complex magnetic fields are capable of forming magnetic vortex tubes, even on a galactic and intergalactic scale, so all together it might look like a sufficient combination to account for the required rotations, boosts, and translations. To give you some idea of how it could look :
There would be no gravitational field with straight (or curved) lines of force, like electric field, and instead of gravitational field lines, we would have toroidal vortex tubes (loops) in magnetic fields, similar to the above, carrying all the momenta and moments.
Of course, these loops are naturally scale-invariant.
This is the ultimate secret of loop quantum gravity.
The outcome of Fedorov-Imbert controversy was a big surprise, and therefore beyond what I imagined above as a possible gravity's propagation mechanism, we could still expect to discover something equally surprising.
In my humble opinion, the supposition that gravity must be a fundamental force lacks convincing justification, and is akin to a pre-Faraday idea of magnetism being a fundamental force, independent of electricity.
- Electron, i.e. electric charge and its spin produce magnetism.
- Electricity, magnetism, and angular momentum produce gravity.
JOHN GONSOWSKI —
The friend of Ark's (via Clifford algebra conferences) who gave me a link to Ark's Quantum future site http://www.quantumfuture.net/ is Tony Smith. I originally found Smith because he relates Clifford algebra to personality models and I had a personality model paper without math that I wanted to give a math basis for. So I basically got into physics because it was a useful way to understand the math. Here's the Tony Smith math view of gravitomagnetism which is a different thing than Ark's conformal gravity:
The scale of Birkeland Current Loops extends beyond Stellar to Galactic (images, SOHO of Sun and NRAO of Fornax A from thunderbolts.info webpage, which said as to NGC "... a tiny but energy-dense plasmoid at the center of the galaxy ... Fornax A ... discharges energy along oppositely-directed Birkeland filaments (invisible in this image) into the radio lobes. Diffuse currents loop back from the lobes to the spiral arms, where their increasing density triggers star formation as they return to the central plasmoid. The scale also extends down to Planetary, as is seen in the Jupiter-Io system (image from Anthony Peratt's book, Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer-Verlag 1992.
The Linear Angular Momentum, Magnetic Dipole Moment, and Mass Relationships hold in Gravitationally Bound Domains, which are characterized by Energy Below about 250 GeV = VEV of W-Boson Higgs where: the 1 Scalar Dilation and 4 Special Conformal Transformations of the 15-dimensional Conformal Group Spin(2,4) = SU(2,2) are frozen out; the 4 Translations and 6 Lorentz Transformations combine as described in gr-qc/9809061 by R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Peireira:
"... By the process of Inonu-Wigner group contraction taking the limit R -> oo, ...[where R is the de Sitter pseudo-radius, the] ... de Sitter group... [whether of metric ... (-1,+1,+1,+1,-1) or (-1,+1,+1,+1,+1) , is]... reduced to the Poincare group P ...[formed by a semi-direct product between Lorentz and translation groups] and ... de Sitter space...[is]... reduced to the Minkowski space M. As the scalar curvature of the de Sitter space goes to zero in this limit, we can say that M is a spacetime gravitationally related to a vanishing cosmological constant."
If the 1+3 = 4-dimensional spacetime on which the 6+4 = 10-dimensional Poincare Group Spin(1,3) + 4-Translations acts linearly is viewed in terms of an elastic Aether, its rigidity would correspond to the VEV of the W-Boson Higgs Condensate on the order of 250 GeV. Within Gravitationally Bound Domains, since Special Conformal and Dilation transformations are frozen out, the rigidity of the 4-dimensional elastic Aether corresponds to the W-Higgs VEV of about 250 GeV. The T-Tbar Quark Condensate W-Boson Higgs mechanism connects Gravitational Mass (based on the Planck Mass Mplanck) carried by Gravity with ElectroMagnetic Charge (based on the Magnetic Monopole Mmono) carried by the U(2) ElectroWeak Force so that J / Mmono = Mplanck.
Although the Wesson angular momentum / mass relationship covers a very wide range of mass scales (at least from Asteroids to Stars and Stellar Systems), it is not Universal... The differences may be that the Wesson relationship involves a combination of ElectroMagnetic and Gravity forces during Collapse/ Formation, while, for the others, the forces involved are:
- p_neutrino = infinity (or very large) g^(-1) cm^2 sec^(-1) - No EM and No direct Gravity.
- p_electron = 5 x 10^26 g^(-1) cm^2 sec^(-1) - mostly EM, with minimal Gravity.
- p_quark = 1.1 x 10^21 gm^(-1) cm^2 sec(-1) - mostly EM and Color, with minimal Gravity.
- p_proton = 1.2 x 10^20 g^(-1) cm^2 sec^(-1) - mostly EM and Color and Pion-Strong, with minimal Gravity.
- p_wesson = 10^(-16) g^(-1) cm^2 sec^(-1) - balanced EM and Gravity.
- p_neutralKNblackhole = 2.2 x 10^(-18) g^(-1) cm^2 sec^(-1) No EM, just Gravity.
WÓJEK ZIGGY —
I could not disagree with the above math!
Primarily, because my math skills are not sufficient to follow it. :-))
Being a skeptical experimental mechanic, I respect and value thunderbolts.info because they are primarily concerned with observable physical phenomena, and with reliable data.
As you know, according to mainstream science, the above photo depicts a black hole.
Pardon me, but isn't this black hole also on the outside of this golden doughnut, and not only on the inside?
To me, the photo is rather depicting an energy-dense plasmoid at the otherwise empty center of the galaxy.
Or, maybe this golden doughnut is the high frequency Hawking radiation coming off the black hole? Just kidding! :-))
John, what is the specific mathematical equation expressing the fact that at every galactic center there must be a black hole ?!
For me, physics is essentially about observable physical phenomena, and about anomalous empirical effects, ideally all such that we can experiment with, like for instance the Biefeld-Brown effect. Educated speculation is fine with me, because there is definitely more to be discovered outside the mainstream soap box, and we need to find new directions. Because Albert Einstein, the great Philosopher-Scientist, has my utmost respect and deepest gratitude for all his contributions to physics and philosophy of science, let me quote him :
Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone. […] If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.
John, because what I acutely lack, as an experimental quantum mechanic, are sufficient math skills, our discussion would be most meaningful to me when, like the great Philosopher-Scientist himself, we would formulate it primarily in terms of philosophy of science, and less of math.
Now, please let me summarize all the claims from my paper for you, John.
In my paper, I propose a simple, but precise and plausible atomic mass generation mechanism. According to it, mass is a vector of an electric dipole moment (EDM). The flip side of this mass generation mechanism is a gravity producing mechanism that answers this seriously overlooked question: In virtue of what exactly mass produces gravity ?
Inertial mass is no different from gravitational mass, and they are, in fact, one and the same thing. Applying all of the above to antimatter, we notice that the direction of EDM in antimatter is opposite of that in matter. This very strongly indicates the possibility of antimatter producing repulsive gravity without the need of negative mass. In short, the idea of negative mass and negative energy, perfectly fine in mathematical equations, is as physically plausible as an idea of negative radiation, and negative distance.
I conjecture complex magnetic fields and scale-invariant magnetic vortex tubes as, respectively, the propagation medium and the carrier mechanism.
The first in line of cheap and easily testable predictions that my conjecture naturally makes is the one of negative sign of antihydrogen gravitational interaction, to be performed at CERN in few years.
I see it as a strong advantage that my conjecture is based solely on long established and well accepted facts in physics, and does not invoke any meta-physical entities. Therefore it allows for immediate table-top experimental testing, as everything is scale-invariant :
It has become more and more evident that spacetime or aether, in any shape or form, are meta-physical entities, being mere mathematical concepts loaded with assumed physical properties that do not refer to anything physically real, or experimentally falsifiable.
However, to my utmost joy and satisfaction, I have discovered essential correspondence between my conjecture and theory of gravitomagnetism that clearly constitutes potential basis for unifying quantum mechanics with general theory of relativity in the weak-field approximation into the first ever, kick-ass, experimentally testable quantum gravity / anti-gravity hypothesis.
Please, do not get me wrong. I do not want to appear as unduly critical. What else is out there? The strings and the loops. Without your help, they would not have realized that one can make a loop out of a string, and vice versa. Even children know it. And how many decades have we been already trying to learn how to tie all these quantum shoelaces, and with what results?
If I am not mistaken, in addition to the above varieties of quantum shoelaces, Max Tegmark came up with a very original idea that everything is made of two-dimensional triangles of information. When the information spells it bit by bit : "Let there be gravity", presto, and there is an actual gravitational acceleration! Are we living in a giant holographic computer simulation ???
These days it goes without saying that any such fundamental entities are far too small to be ever experimentally detected, and therefore their ontological status in physics must be understood as purely meta-physical. It is all a deceptive speculative guessing. It cannot be verified. It cannot be falsified. What is it then? It is not even wrong. So much ado about nothing.
My closing remarks :
Atoms are said to have mass, and therefore matter made of atoms produces gravity. In turn, atoms are essentially made of protons and electrons. It is my intuition that tells me that it is only logical to expect gravity to be a natural result of protons and electrons interacting in an atom.
In my humble opinion, the supposition that gravity must be a fundamental force lacks convincing justification, and is akin to a pre-Faraday idea of magnetism being a fundamental force, independent of electricity.
- Electric charge and its spin produce magnetism.
- Electricity, magnetism, and angular momentum produce gravity.
My hypothesis is 100% mainstream-certified experimentally physical, conceptually complete, and immediately testable :
It is not that the LHC is too small. It is that the rest of the contestants are fundamentally meta-physical, this being the reason why they cannot make sensible testable predictions capable of producing conclusive experimental results. Because they have been lost in math.
One last thing. How would any of these shoelaces hope to account for anti-gravity? What about looping the strings the other way around, of course strings of negative length. It could work! :-))
It seems to me that you are a strong believer in spacetime and aether. Would you be able to mentally detach yourself from these ideas, and let them go where they belong? I know it could be emotionally difficult.
John, should you need more clarification, please let's debate it further.
JOHN GONSOWSKI —
You can do antigravity as well as gravity with rotations, boosts, and translations. You kind of just have to define the situations where this antigravity can be done and there are different ideas out there for that (bimetric, binary universe, T-duality). Most fundamentally I think everything is fundamentally information interacting. The math of spacetime is kind of just information that sets your reference frame according to special relativity. The math of a compressible aether is kind of just information that does mundane things like expand the universe, or not so mundane things like channeling on a Ouija board. Gravitational mass kind of relates to rotations, boosts, and translations responding to a disturbance from the Higgs scalar field (and you can calculate particle masses as ratios of the Higgs VeV). Inertial mass relates in the model I like to a binding energy with the Dirac sea within the Compton radius created by the Higgs scalar disturbance. I'm not overly flexible mainly for general information theory reasons (related to personality models and cellular automata).
WÓJEK ZIGGY —
Well, the above sounds like pretty much everything is covered, and in place. Shoelaces are ready to spring into experimental quantum action, and tie everything together :
John, if I may ask you, what made you think that everything is fundamentally information interacting?
If you were to be correct, then would it be possible to formulate the COMPLETE theory of Nature?
Do you, or Max Tegmark, have any mathematical model for the phenomenon of channeling on a Ouija board? Would you know if Cassiopaean Aliens have dropped any hints regarding mathematical model for the phenomenon of channeling on a Ouija board for Prof. Jadczyk?
JOHN GONSOWSKI —
First of all it would be Tony Smith not me who would have the math/information theory of everything. I just developed his idea in more detail for personality models and cellular automata via my two papers. I like the model simply because the details worked out for the non-physics use just like for the physics use. Now information is usually representing something. For personality models it's obviously personality. Cellular automata really can be just the math. For physics, the unbroken symmetry would be consciousness which when broken gets you physicality too. Personality and cellular automata interestingly come with the broken symmetry observable though it's more correct to say that the unbroken cellular automata symmetry allows the broken symmetry to be viewed and displaying physics or personality via a cellular automata rules table would be like seeing the unbroken symmetry.
Ark wrote an article on the physics of channeling and it fits well with the Tony Smith model I like (both Tony and Ark use the conformal group for gravity and Tony cites Ark for this on his website). For me the Cs over the years have been steering Ark towards Tony's model. The "octagonal complexigram" hint from 1999 still needs to be looked at more by Ark in my view plus the recent Geometric algebra clue needs to be a focus. Cellular automata has a Geometric aka Clifford algebra symmetry. Channeling only gets you subtle hints for a direction to go in from your current position aka the more you know, the better the hints get. The subtle hints can be confusing as in it's easier to know what an octagonal complexigram is in hindsight rather than foresight. Once the Cs claimed physics was infinite dimensional which confused me from a Clifford algebra point of view but they later clarified via another hint that they were talking about the vertices of infinite-sized spacetimes rather than just the physics observable at a single vertex.
WÓJEK ZIGGY —
Coming back to our mundane physical reality, I have two questions for you. According to any quantum shoelace theory you are familiar with, would you be able to :
- provide an educated estimation of hydrogen atom's mass value in its ground state? My conjecture can correctly calculate this value.
- predict the sign of gravitational interaction between antihydrogen atoms and matter at CERN.
JOHN GONSOWSKI —
- A Hydrogen atom's mass in its ground state is basically just a proton and that mass can be calculated.
- Antimatter has positive mass in our spacetime so gravity should attract for antimatter via our spacetime metric.
To get gravity to repel, you would need what is called an exotic spacetime.
WÓJEK ZIGGY —
Regarding 2. According to my experimentally testable hypothesis, anti-matter has anti-mass that produces anti-gravity. John, we cannot possibly be both right, right? So, who is correct? Me, or your exotic shoe strings ?!
Regarding 1. According to my experimentally testable hypothesis, mass of a hydrogen atom has a value equivalent of its electric dipole moment. In its ground state, as it has been well known to be a basic physical fact, hydrogen's atom electric dipole moment value is zero. Therefore, according to my calculation, hydrogen atom's mass value in its ground state is also zero. Do you agree with me? If not, why not?
JOHN GONSOWSKI —
Well I technically don't think antimatter antigravitates at all so I don't like the exotic spacetime version any more than your virtual photon version. My favorite model could antigravitate if you move to an exotic spacetime but I don't see how that would happen for antimatter and it could antigravitate by moving virtual longitudinal photons to the same location as conventional transverse photons but I don't see how that would happen either.
You would be using a different definition for mass than I do. I fundamentally use a Feynman Checkerboard definition where mass relates to change of direction in a vacuum. Since a hydrogen atom doesn't travel at the speed of light in a vacuum, it can't have zero mass.
WÓJEK ZIGGY —
John, I have explained it above, in detail, that my model does not use virtual photons any more than actual magnetic field use them. We can describe magnetic field in terms of virtual photons, but it is a description of reality, and not actual physical reality. Perhaps for you there is no difference?
You would be using a different definition for mass than I do.
I am not using a definition of mass. What I am using is my mass generating mechanism to calculate value of mass. What is the mass generating mechanism you are using, John?
A definition of mass is only as good as it is in agreement with experimental measurements. You say :
it can't have zero mass.
Well, in physical reality, the mass we have been talking about is actually ZERO. This is an empirical fact. And on the top of it, in quantum mechanics, there is even a theoretical constraint which implication is exactly such.
And as to whether antihydrogen would antigravitate, we will have 3 independent experimental teams at CERN presenting their measurements in few years.
John, what if they demonstrate antihydrogen antigravitating? Are going to tell them something along the lines of :
If details/experiments have a problem with my theory, it really seems like the details/experiments that have to be better understood.
OK, sometimes it may be so. I give you that. However, could we, somehow, better understand the above ZERO to have a non-zero value instead?
JOHN GONSOWSKI —
Well I might think of everything as information interactions most fundamentally but you kind of have to talk in terms of the math of particle interactions since that's what most others are most familiar with. Mass generation is via diffusion of the bosons for rotations, boosts, and translations. If those bosons aren't available to change direction, the particle is massless and keeps going at the speed of light. It's not my theory so I'd probably let the theory's creator do any explaining. EM with photons and gravity with gravitons have different calculated/empirical force strengths so any explanation from anyone for anything that mixes them is going to have to address that in a way I can picture.
WÓJEK ZIGGY —
You wrote :
but you kind of have to talk in terms of the math of particle interactions
Clearly, we approach physical reality from two different perspectives. It seems to me that you are a mathematical physicist, with emphasis on mathematics. You write equations on a piece of paper. Very well, and fine. On the other hand, my hands are dirty, because I am a mechanic :
I am a quantum mechanic, with emphasis on experimental results, like for instance these at CERN. In physics, we need both, equations for calculations, and experimental measurements to verify them, to know we have not lost touch with reality.
I am also a Natural Philosopher, a philosopher of science, like Albert Einstein. Because Albert Einstein, the great Philosopher-Scientist, has my utmost respect and deepest gratitude for all his contributions to physics and philosophy of science, let me quote him :
Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone. […] If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.
From my side, if your mathematical physics does not refer to physical reality in any sense that can be experimentally falsified, then in my opinion it stops being mathematical physics, and becomes mathematical meta-physics, that is to say pure, abstract mathematics. Pure, abstract mathematics arguably constitutes the apex of all human intellectual achievements, and therefore it does not need to masquerade as physics.
Physicis is about physical reality, and the role of math in physics, as unconditional and important as it is, is secondary. Math merely quantifies physical phenomena, and it does not create them out of equations. After all, Thomas Edison didn’t need all the math of quantum mechanics, or of Einstein’s photoelectric effect, or of de Broglie’s particle-wave duality, to make his lightbulb emit photons. Without Faraday, there would be no Maxwell. Quantum mechanics had been developed from the ground up, when Max Planck got an anomalous experimental result. Quantum physics has been driven by experimental results that are still waiting to be properly interpreted.
In quantum mechanics, we have been having more groundbreaking experimental results than their interpretations to give us a conceptual grasp on them. On the contrary, in the meta-physical realm of shoe strings and their loops, what we have is an unashamed, unrestrained, out of control overabundance of space dimensions populated by corny undetectable one-dimensional Unicorns, and only one little, modest and humble ZERO for the number of testable predictions.
It was Albert Einstein who turned physics on his head. You would find the following fragment in Walter Isaacson's biography of Einstein :
Einstein began his Oxford lecture with a nod to empiricism: "great knowledge of reality flows from experience and goes to it." Immediately, however, he hurried to emphasize the role of "pure reason" and logical deduction. He admitted - by no means justifying himself - that the success with which he used the tensor calculus in equations of general relativity, meant that he converted to a mathematical strategy in which the simplicity and elegance of equations matter more than empiricism. It is the fact that this method has proved so effective in building general relativity "allows us to trust that nature is the realization of what is the simplest to think mathematically." Very interesting! This sentence contains the essence of Einstein's thought from those decades, when mathematical "simplicity" was his signpost in the search for a unified field theory. There is an echo of the statement by the great Isaak Newton from the third book of Principia: "Nature likes simplicity." However, Einstein did not provide any evidence to support his faith, which modern particle physics seemed to contradict. He did not explain more precisely what he meant by "mathematical simplicity". Einstein simply relied on a deep intuition that God followed this principle to create the universe. These were his beliefs - or rather his faith - when in May 1931 he was awarded the honorary doctorate of Oxford University. In his lecture at the time, Einstein admitted that in his relentless pursuit of a unified field theory, he was stimulated by the charms of mathematical elegance rather than the pressure of empirical facts: "I am not driven by the pressure of experimental data, I rather follow the appealing charm of mathematical simplicity."
John, are you, like Einstein the great physicist, not being driven by the pressure of experimental data? Do you rather follow the appealing charm instead?
Of course. Along with other mathematical meta-physicists, who wanna be the next Einstein.
And don't get me wrong, please. In principle, I do not see anything wrong with this approach.
That is as long as it stays in touch with physical reality. The reason Einstein rejected Kaluza-Klein unification was that it required one meta-physical element.
The fifth dimension of space.
Einstein simply did not see any reason to assume the physical existence of it.
And I am very impressed with him.
However, as it often happens, it is easier to notice a tiny speck in other person's eye.
In a recently discovered personal letter to a friend, Dutch Protestant priest, Einstein shares with him the following seminal moment :
While sitting on a bench in the park, I asked myself: What kind of physical stuff could my spacetime be made of? Well, it is only logical that spacetime is simply made of space and time. And what is time made of? Time is made of seconds. And what is space made of? Space is made of cubic meters. Because we use time and space in equations describing real physical phenomena, so let’s hope that space and time are real physical entities, too. Therefore, the physical substance that space and time are made of are physical meters and physical seconds. This way spacetime is physical, but it is not made of any typical matter, or energy, like the Aether. Bingo. I have it both ways. And to add the insult to injury, I will turn time into the fourth dimension of space. Just because it will be simpler and more elegant. Besides, my deep intuition tells me that God followed this principle to create the Universe. So, don't blame me, because you will go to Hell. Praise the Lord! Amen.
As you can see for yourself in the above video, it does not take a genius juggling tensors with spinors and twistors in 86 dimensions, in order to realize that spacetime is a mere mathematical construct that does not refer to anything physically real.
No matter how accurate the calculations will turn out to be, they will not magically turn this beautiful and elegant mathematical construct of spacetime into an experimentally detectable physical reality.
Ever. Take it to the bank.
What you observe is light being curved and bent, but you cannot observe nor experimentally detect the stuff spacetime is made of, because such physical stuff does not exist. Read my lips: any spacetime, even exotic ones, is im-material. Disagree? Then tell me what is it made of ?!
What spacetime actually is, is the ultimate La La Land for all Einstein wannabies, where they hang out together to have wild ontological orgies, while real physicists are actually hard at work, under heavy pressure of experimental data. All Einstein wannabies, and other assortment of multi-dimensional shoe string loopers, had long lost touch with physical reality, and are happily LOST IN MATH :
Having said that, let's see what you bring to the table, John.
You claim that the mass generation mechanism you are familiar with is via diffusion of the bosons for rotations, boosts, and translations, yet you have no idea what is the value of hydrogen atom's mass in its ground state, neither from theory, nor from experimental measurements. It is a shocker.
What you bring to the table, however, are your old shoe strings, so you can play with them, and tie them into various infantile loopy loops, such that we could use them to catch corny Unicorns, in order to kill time.
And as you said before, if physical reality does not seem to follow your math, it should better re-think how it acts, and start behaving in a beautiful and elegant way, obeying the Laws of your divine math. Because God created the Universe out of math. And then God created Max Tegmark to deliver this good news to CERN.
Assuming God exists, do you really want to make me believe that he created the Universe on a shoe string?
It's not my theory so I'd probably let the theory's creator do any explaining.
So, what is your theory, or your claim to fame, John ??
John, I have just made a breakthrough discovery in Physics :
It happened last night. God spoke to me in my dream, and said something to the effect of :
Ziggy, go and tell Tegmark and Jadczyk that I created the Universe in the image of Holy Trinity, and out of the following deep sub-elementary entities ...
and then the Holy Creator showed me a holographic animated sequence made of divine golden light that upon awakening I started to formulate as :
THE SUB—STRING MECHANICS
It is going to be a very advanced theory because it will also include :
LOOPHOLE MECHANICS
concerning dynamics of multi-dimensional exotic space inside a quantum Loop. Loopholes are also wormholes to parallel universes.
John, I have incorporated your postulate as :
GONSOWSKI's STRING—LOOP DUALITY
and also added Louis de Broglie equivalent :
SUB-PARTICLE—STRING DUALITY
and with one genius stroke of a pen, hereby I make the following unification of the above two :
SUB-PARTICLE—STRING—LOOP TRINITY
exactly as I saw it in my mystical vision granted me by the Holy Creator himself :
The first testable prediction is about searching for physical evidence of existence of dark strings, dark loop-holes, anti-strings, dark anti-loopholes, and also relativistic black loopholes that the cores of black holes are made of.
Clearly, we need more powerful telescopes in Pluto's orbit, and it has become pretty obvious that we need to convert Saturn's rings into LSC — the Long String Collider, along with massively parallel quantum hyper-computers for experimental data processing.
John, I am looking forward to you further contributing to our UNIFIED THEORY OF SUB—STRING MECHANICS.
JOHN GONSOWSKI —
The Tony Smith model I like has particle mass and force strength calculations plus cosmological constant and dark energy to dark matter to ordinary matter ratios that match with the WMAP experiment so I'm OK with the current experiments. Einstein had a nice 1938 paper with Bergmann on Kaluza Klein that got discussed in Ark's channeling. Kaluza-Klein is just a way to add an information space for things like dark energy and particle charges. Heck the not very controversial translations used for the cosmological constant are SO(5) math so they already have the 5th dimension. XYZT spacetime is certainly just information degrees of freedom needed to keep things from happening all at the same time and place. The reference frames of relativity are kind of just the idea that each particle keeps its own map of where and when things are.
The idea that massless particles travel at the speed of light in a vacuum is standard so I can't see that idea as being shocking for you. If by vacuum you mean the Dirac Sea and current vs constituent masses then I could see you as getting confused since I use a non-standard definition there. The model I like does calculate these masses. I worked with a cellular automata at IBM for optical circuit board testers that was more complicated than the elementary cellular automata that matches with Tony Smith's physics so from my point of view God did use a very elementary information theory for the universe.There is kind of Holy Trinity in this information theory in that it matches with the Law of Three in the Enneagram. The Enneagram is a modern personality model and I've written papers on personality theory too using this math. The Enneagram comes from Gurdjieff's 4th Way and Ark and Laura and their channeling are into the 4th Way a bit. The channeling once recommended to Ark studying Jung and Gurdjieff to learn more about physics and this is quite easy to see via Jung/Gurdjieff based personality models. The Gurdjieff law of three/Holy Trinity would be the math concept called Triality.
WÓJEK ZIGGY —
You wrote :
The Tony Smith model I like has particle mass and force strength calculations plus cosmological constant and dark energy to dark matter to ordinary matter ratios that match with the WMAP experiment so I'm OK with the current experiments.
Are you saying that the WMAP experiment established dark energy to dark matter to ordinary matter ratios experimentally? Did it detect the physical existence of dark matter and dark energy? I doubt, because dark matter and dark energy does not exist, other than being a desperate theoretical fudge in order to save GTR. And it has been a fudge of literally cosmic proportions! :-))
Regarding the value of hydrogen atom's mass in its ground state — other than Ouija Board, have you tried tea leaf divination yet?
In your future papers, remember to cite Jadczyk's Cassiopaea Ouija Board experimental results.
Well I might think of everything as information interactions most fundamentally.
Why not? You might as well keep thinking like that, if you don't have anything better to do.
And good luck with your Enneagram—Cassiopaea—Jadczyk—OuijaBoard—HolyMolly quintility.
John, you are not a mathematical physicist. You are not even a mathematical meta-physicist.
You are a Cassiopaean Ouija Board channeling Enneagramist. :-))
To tell you that you are not even wrong would be too much of a compliment.
Bye! :-))
