I have been working on a theory of the universe. It is probably stupid so if there are some physics guys out there who can critique this I'd appreciate it.
My theory says that the Universe consists of two manifolds at right angles to each other and that all particles in the two universes are traveling at the speed of light. Because of that relationship the Lorentz equation falls out naturally.
i.e. v1^2 + v2^2 = c^2. thus v2^2 = c^2 - v1^2
with the subscript 1 standing for our universe (manifold) and subscript 2 standing for the manifold we can't "see".
The equivalence of matter and energy is intrinsic to such a formulation. What is mass in one manifold becomes energy in the connected manifold. And vice versa.
Two Manifolds
I like "theory of everythings" that operate on simple geometric models. Less is more, more or less. String theory seems like an exercise in complex absurdity.
MSimon you might enjoy this http://www.physorg.com/news96027669.html
Anyhows since when did you find the time to discover the universal manifolds ? get back to work on the polywell
MSimon you might enjoy this http://www.physorg.com/news96027669.html
Anyhows since when did you find the time to discover the universal manifolds ? get back to work on the polywell
Purity is Power
String Theory, Electron Spin and Two manifolds.
It has been bothering me actively for about two months since I realized the Lorentz equation could be seen as geometrical. It was the square root thingy that gave it away.
I deal a lot in electronics with phase space and "i" (the sqrt of -1) and it just struck me that Lorentz was geometrical.
It took me a couple of months to figure out the right equation - I'm a little thick sometimes. Then it came to me that if you consider that we are always moving at c (this came to me while studying a popular book on string theory a couple of years back but I put it away for a time since I did not have a clear idea of the concept) it all becomes simple.
I had recently seen the Feynman lecture on the all paths theory (thanks to Lubos Motl) and thought that is very strange. However if you have two manifolds and matter in one is stationary and correspondingly moving at the speed of light in the other it makes a lot more sense.
Feynman was a very bright guy and I wonder why he never saw this.
In fact it is a wonderment why Einstein who was a classical physicist at heart didn't see it. I suppose it would have come from his reluctance to add more dimensions to space-time.
So in a way string theory helped me get it.
I also like this:
http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/histor ... dsmit.html
It talks about the discovery of electron spin by a math challenged guy.
I'm the math challenged guy in this case.
==
As to why no work lately on Polywell?
Until we get the results from WB-7 there is not a big point in doing a lot more engineering. So I'm spending my time on strange physics, social issues, and the war.
However, I'm always ready to answer questions and help others get up to speed.
Plus I'm still doing my IEC promotions whenever the topic of fusion power comes up on a blog.
I deal a lot in electronics with phase space and "i" (the sqrt of -1) and it just struck me that Lorentz was geometrical.
It took me a couple of months to figure out the right equation - I'm a little thick sometimes. Then it came to me that if you consider that we are always moving at c (this came to me while studying a popular book on string theory a couple of years back but I put it away for a time since I did not have a clear idea of the concept) it all becomes simple.
I had recently seen the Feynman lecture on the all paths theory (thanks to Lubos Motl) and thought that is very strange. However if you have two manifolds and matter in one is stationary and correspondingly moving at the speed of light in the other it makes a lot more sense.
Feynman was a very bright guy and I wonder why he never saw this.
In fact it is a wonderment why Einstein who was a classical physicist at heart didn't see it. I suppose it would have come from his reluctance to add more dimensions to space-time.
So in a way string theory helped me get it.
I also like this:
http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/histor ... dsmit.html
It talks about the discovery of electron spin by a math challenged guy.
I'm the math challenged guy in this case.
==
As to why no work lately on Polywell?
Until we get the results from WB-7 there is not a big point in doing a lot more engineering. So I'm spending my time on strange physics, social issues, and the war.
However, I'm always ready to answer questions and help others get up to speed.
Plus I'm still doing my IEC promotions whenever the topic of fusion power comes up on a blog.
There was a good quote in that article
Keep doodling those polywells on restaurant napkins people. You never know what you may discover whoever you are.http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/spin/goudsmit.html wrote:"First: you need not be a genius to make an important contribution to physics"
"even if you make a minor contribution, if it is not important, then this gives an enormous satisfaction. Therefore I do believe that one should not always aspire to tackle what is most important, but try to have fun working in physics and obtain results."
Purity is Power
Thanks for the link.Keegan wrote:I like "theory of everythings" that operate on simple geometric models. Less is more, more or less. String theory seems like an exercise in complex absurdity.
MSimon you might enjoy this http://www.physorg.com/news96027669.html
Anyhows since when did you find the time to discover the universal manifolds ? get back to work on the polywell :D
I sent an e-mail to Sparling and if he answers me I'll let you guys know what he said.
Roger,
I have no idea.
It just seemed like a good idea at the time.
I kind of conceive of them as topological spaces, connected at every point but different in size. Or maybe connected to each other yet moving away from each other at the speed of light.
My math skillz are not near heavy enough for a correct formulation.
It was just a thought brought on by looking at the Lorentz equation as a description of geometry.
I have no idea.
It just seemed like a good idea at the time.
I kind of conceive of them as topological spaces, connected at every point but different in size. Or maybe connected to each other yet moving away from each other at the speed of light.
My math skillz are not near heavy enough for a correct formulation.
It was just a thought brought on by looking at the Lorentz equation as a description of geometry.
Imagine a manifold that splits into two branches, then each branch splits into two, etc. My Dad (Math Phd) asked my Mom to paint a representation of this back in the late 1960's. My Mom is an accomplished painter. The purpose was to show the mathematical representation of the shape of space in a simple painting.
With my limited understanding I am guessing you seem to be onto the right premise. The Cosmic microwave background survey and other observations indicate the shape of space as described by Mathematicians in various formula over the last 40 or so yrs. But String theory probably needs to be added to the litany.
On Edit:
I missread your 1st post, I think I see what you are saying. One manifold describes our known 3 dimensions and time. The second manifold describes what we dont "SEE". So if I left our manifold, entered the other manifold, traveled thru it, to appear back in our manifold at a different location, would I have appeared to travel faster than light, according to an observer in the 1st manifold?
With my limited understanding I am guessing you seem to be onto the right premise. The Cosmic microwave background survey and other observations indicate the shape of space as described by Mathematicians in various formula over the last 40 or so yrs. But String theory probably needs to be added to the litany.
On Edit:
I missread your 1st post, I think I see what you are saying. One manifold describes our known 3 dimensions and time. The second manifold describes what we dont "SEE". So if I left our manifold, entered the other manifold, traveled thru it, to appear back in our manifold at a different location, would I have appeared to travel faster than light, according to an observer in the 1st manifold?
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.
Roger,
I think the most important idea from string theory is the idea of more than 3 dimensions.
Sadly I do not have the math to prove any of this. Some one with more capability than I have is going to have to do the heavy lifting. All I have is a germ of an idea, a glimmer.
Yes. It would explain Einstein's action at a distance and Feynman's all paths theory.I missread your 1st post, I think I see what you are saying. One manifold describes our known 3 dimensions and time. The second manifold describes what we dont "SEE". So if I left our manifold, entered the other manifold, traveled thru it, to appear back in our manifold at a different location, would I have appeared to travel faster than light, according to an observer in the 1st manifold?
I think the most important idea from string theory is the idea of more than 3 dimensions.
Sadly I do not have the math to prove any of this. Some one with more capability than I have is going to have to do the heavy lifting. All I have is a germ of an idea, a glimmer.
Yes, I think String theory has a place in a Unified theory. One really needs a place for those particles to go, when they pop out of existence in our manifold.MSimon wrote:
I think the most important idea from string theory is the idea of more than 3 dimensions.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.
MSimon,
If mass is energy in the "other manifold" then it makes perfect sense that it travels close to the speed of light (relativistic speeds), like energy in our three dimensions travels at relativistic speeds.
However, I think the "other" 3 dimensions you describe would seem -- by some person who thinks string theory is valid -- like a description of string theory. Playing Devil's advocate: how can you differentiate this from string theory? How would experiments show that string theory is false, and this is more accurate?
Lol, it's fun to talk about!
If mass is energy in the "other manifold" then it makes perfect sense that it travels close to the speed of light (relativistic speeds), like energy in our three dimensions travels at relativistic speeds.
However, I think the "other" 3 dimensions you describe would seem -- by some person who thinks string theory is valid -- like a description of string theory. Playing Devil's advocate: how can you differentiate this from string theory? How would experiments show that string theory is false, and this is more accurate?
Lol, it's fun to talk about!
dch24,
Yes that struck me as well. In fact it came to me in a flash when I was reading a string theory book. My favorite string theorist, Lubos Motl, didn't slam the idea, or give it a thumbs up when I presented it to him.
If you assume other dimensions and everything is always traveling at the speed of light, the Lorentz equation makes perfect sense since it is obviously geometric.
So I don't know. I'm waiting for someone with real ability to use it or destroy it.
Simon
Yes that struck me as well. In fact it came to me in a flash when I was reading a string theory book. My favorite string theorist, Lubos Motl, didn't slam the idea, or give it a thumbs up when I presented it to him.
If you assume other dimensions and everything is always traveling at the speed of light, the Lorentz equation makes perfect sense since it is obviously geometric.
So I don't know. I'm waiting for someone with real ability to use it or destroy it.
Simon