Unifield Field candidate - the way is open

P

pogono

Registered Senior Member
Hello all,

my article with Unified Field description candidate has been published:
scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=17700

Moreover...,
soon will appear an article written by some other physicist/mathematician, who make citation of mine, confirms my results and generalize my equations using Killing vector fields (and Gauss-Codazzi equation).

You may find draft of this article here:
tp-theory.net/eng/proof-theory.html

He confirms f.e. what I have shown:
- we may consider reference frame assigned to photon!! (if we use Killing observers)
- we may derive GR equations using Rindler's transformation on flat Minkowski space-time what digs a tunnel between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

Have a good reading
pogono
 
We have an alternative theories section for stuff like this. I'm unfamiliar with the journal you have your work in so I can't pass comment on its quality. What's your publication history? I ask because if you've just jumped from nothing to publishing a claim of a unified field theory it raises eyebrows.

Moving to AT until such time as the competency of the claims are established, I don't have the time or the inclination right now to do so myself.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
We have an alternative theories section for stuff like this. I'm unfamiliar with the journal you have your work in so I can't pass comment on its quality. What's your publication history? I ask because if you've just jumped from nothing to publishing a claim of a unified field theory it raises eyebrows.
Click to expand...

Nice to meet you, AlphaNumeric.

At first let me say, it is not some alternative theory.
General Relativity is right, QM is right. Mainstream is right.

In my article I only show (for Schwarzschild solution) that we may consider gravity - completely correctly mathematically - as accelerated flat Minkowski space-time and we obtain the same formulas that comes from General Relativity. Photon trace (geodesics) appears to be effect of regular Rindler's transformation...

Next physician (Kuroneko, in second link) confirms my work, and generalize my formulas with Killing vector fields (mathworld.wolfram.com/KillingVectors.html) that is essentially the same framework than GR use, but now considered for Killing observers reference frames.

Conclusion:
I have just shown, that we may consider gravity by accelerated photons!
I also show, how to construct temporary reference frame for photons!

Ok, I know, I know... it sounds ridiculous, but check it by yourself!
It is simply math. I have red in your profile that you know some math.

But wait... It means that we may consider accelerated wave. So, may be it means => "accelerated wave function"?

Since De Broglie (and then Schrödinger and Dirac) we do not imagine gravity other way, then just another quantum interaction. Higgs describes it this way. Now, we may consider accelerated photon! We do not need "the mass" anymore.

I appreciate if someone will develop it farther with Lie Algebra.
I did my work.

P.S.
You may check my background on my web page.
I won few awards for innovation and wrote few important publications in my life.
 
Last edited:
Unified Field candidate

I noticed in the abstract of your article you refer to time-space as the medium for wave propagation. Is there a particular reason for stating time-space rather than the more usual space-time?

I totally agree with the point of view that there must be a medium for wave propagation and I have tried to develop this idea further at:

http://www.btinternet.com/~richard.lewis41/Space/Space.htm

Harmony
 
Harmony said:
I noticed in the abstract of your article you refer to time-space as the medium for wave propagation. Is there a particular reason for stating time-space rather than the more usual space-time?
Click to expand...
It comes from my language. In polish we say time-space. :)

Below I put short explanation what is the point in the first two sections of the article.

As you may read in first section (2.1. Schwarzschild Metric and Time Dilation) while considered locally, photons appears to be accelerated according to regular Rindler's transformation.
But when you make whole calculations, at the end you obtain curved time-space (Schwarzschild metric) with constant photon's speed equal "c".

Conclusion: photons may be considered as accelerated, but even accelerated - they still have "c" speed. Instead photon's velocity increase you obtain time-space curvature increase.

In next section of my document (2.2. Vector Fields for Minkowski Time-Space) I explain why we get such strange result. Why we see so strong relation between photon's behaviour and time-space curvature.

"It is proved, there is no aether and time-space is the only medium for electromagnetic wave. However, considering time-space as the medium we may expect, there should exist field equations, describing electromagnetic wave as disturbance in time-space structure (disturbance in medium) propagating in the time-space (propagating in medium)".

I derive such field equations.
Electromagnetic wave IT IS moving disturbance in time-space structure.
 
pogono said:
It comes from my language. In polish we say time-space. :)

Below I put short explanation what is the point in the first two sections of the article.

As you may read in first section (2.1. Schwarzschild Metric and Time Dilation) while considered locally, photons appears to be accelerated according to regular Rindler's transformation.
But when you make whole calculations, at the end you obtain curved time-space (Schwarzschild metric) with constant photon's speed equal "c".

Conclusion: photons may be considered as accelerated, but even accelerated - they still have "c" speed. Instead photon's velocity increase you obtain time-space curvature increase.

In next section of my document (2.2. Vector Fields for Minkowski Time-Space) I explain why we get such strange result. Why we see so strong relation between photon's behaviour and time-space curvature.

"It is proved, there is no aether and time-space is the only medium for electromagnetic wave. However, considering time-space as the medium we may expect, there should exist field equations, describing electromagnetic wave as disturbance in time-space structure (disturbance in medium) propagating in the time-space (propagating in medium)".

I derive such field equations.
Electromagnetic wave IT IS moving disturbance in time-space structure.
Click to expand...

I don't know what to say in other people's threads. You can't agree, you can't disagree. If I was to be precise like Spock I would say "Interesting, I agree with you in some respects." And if I was to just be scientific I would say "I agree with you 75%". But if I was to be honest I would say that I want to correct you on a few things but I am not allowed to as your theory is using relativity in some respects, which puts my ideas in a different category.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
I don't know what to say in other people's threads. You can't agree, you can't disagree. If I was to be precise like Spock I would say "Interesting, I agree with you in some respects." And if I was to just be scientific I would say "I agree with you 75%". But if I was to be honest I would say that I want to correct you on a few things but I am not allowed to as your theory is using relativity in some respects, which puts my ideas in a different category.
Click to expand...

Pincho this thread is in Alternative Theories, so you can post comments, disagree etc. as long as it does not become trolling or just diverting the tread completely. The guidelines are not asnstrict as in Physics and Math....
 
Time dilation

Pogono, In your article section 2.2 you state: "As we know there is no ether and the medium for electromagnetic wave is time-space." When the Michelson-Morley experiments were performed they were looking for a medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves including light waves. I agree with you that there must be a medium for wave propagation but saying that there is no ether seems to be a question of what name we give to the medium. I say this just to test my understanding of your picture of reality.

I also agree with your conclusions that an electromagnetic wave is a moving disturbance in the time space structure. I also take the view that particles with non-zero rest mass such as the electron and proton are looped wave disturbances in the space-time structure. This makes sense when it is considered that electrons emit photons and so must be of the same type of energy.

Harmony
 
Harmony said:
When the Michelson-Morley experiments were performed they were looking for a medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves including light waves.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know MMX experiment. But they were looking for some additional medium. Something that acts like air or water (in time-space).

I state - if there is no additional medium, then just time-space is the medium.
So photon is disturbance in time-space structure propagating in this structure.

Quite obvious, now. Isn't it? :)

Cheers
pogono
 
pogono said:
Yes, I know MMX experiment. But they were looking for some additional medium. Something that acts like air or water (in time-space).

I state - if there is no additional medium, then just time-space is the medium.
So photon is disturbance in time-space structure propagating in this structure.

Quite obvious, now. Isn't it? :)

Cheers
pogono
Click to expand...

The Michelson and Morley experiments were looking for evidence of a specific definition of "the ether" of the day. It was completely consistent with Newtonian space and ridgely fixed, in the background. The luminiferous ether was essentially a solid that did not interact with matter and yet provided the medium for the propagation of light and other EM waves. They did not prove that the ether or an ether did or does not exist. The experiments returned "null" results, which means they failed to detect any motion of the Earth relative to the medium, not that there was or is no medium.

Any conceptualization of an ether consistent with the definition and ideas of the 1800's is inconsistent with almost everything we have come to know about the universe in the last 100 years. This does not mean that there is no medium, space, or spacetime if you like, is a medium for the propagation of EM radiation, photons. One of the big differences is that, as general relativity is incorporated into our understanding of the universe, both space and spacetime, become dynamic.., no longer a static solid fixed in the background, and no longer confined to the restrictions of Newton's conceptualization of space and time.

The ether of today is essentially spacetime and rather than being completely transparent to the motion of matter, it interacts at least weakly with matter. That interaction results in a dynamic curvature of spacetime we associate with gravitation and the Lense-Thirring or frame-dragging effect.., and allows for the propagation of electromagnetic fields and photons.

While using the word "ether" carries a great deal of baggage and almost always elicits negative reactions from most of the mainstream science community, there is no real funtional difference in the way theorists think of spacetime.

The real difference today is definition, nature and characteristics of the empty space within which both matter and EM radiation exists and/or propagates. In many ways spacetime is the new terminology used to refer to the ether, without the negative baggage, that old ideas and concepts raise for the lay public.
 
Time dilation

pogono said:
Conclusion:
I have just shown, that we may consider gravity by accelerated photons!

- - -

Since De Broglie (and then Schrödinger and Dirac) we do not imagine gravity other way, then just another quantum interaction. Higgs describes it this way. Now, we may consider accelerated photon! We do not need "the mass" anymore.
Click to expand...

I agree with the post by OnlyMe regarding the ether and the medium of space-time.

Pogono, I would just like to ask some questions about the earlier post - extracts quoted above.

I do not understand the advantage of accelerated photons to explain gravity. It seems to me that gravity is explained by General Relativity which asserts that mass curves space-time and the movement of mass is affected by space-time curvature. The key question seems to be "How does mass curve space-time?" and if we could explain how an electron curves space-time then this explanation would extend to all particles and to all matter. Then there would be no need for any further explanation of gravity.

I have been working on this approach at:
http://www.btinternet.com/~richard.lewis41/Space/Space.htm

Harmony
 
Brief explanation

Harmony said:
I do not understand the advantage of accelerated photons to explain gravity. It seems to me that gravity is explained by General Relativity which asserts that mass curves space-time and the movement of mass is affected by space-time curvature. The key question seems to be "How does mass curve space-time?"
Click to expand...

Hi Harmony, hello all
by considering acceleration of photons with Rindler's transformation we obtain curved space-time as the result. Its calculated in my article.

I have prepared brief explanation of my articles for non-physicists. You may find it at: www.dilationasfield.net/eng

Have a nice reading :)

Regards
pogono
 
pogono said:
Hi Harmony, hello all
by considering acceleration of photons with Rindler's transformation we obtain curved space-time as the result. Its calculated in my article.

I have prepared brief explanation of my articles for non-physicists. You may find it at: www.dilationasfield.net/eng

Have a nice reading :)

Regards
pogono
Click to expand...

Hi Pogono, I have read the article at the link titled 'Dilation as a field' and one sentence stood out from the first page:
"So, we may expect, there exist some field equations, describing electromagnetic wave as:
- disturbance in space-time structure propagating in the space-time, what is:
- disturbance in medium propagating in the medium."

I completely agree with this description and I would like to share with you my additional thoughts regarding the problem of the unification of physics.
I have felt for some time that the unification of physics can only be accomplished if the correct world view or physical description is deduced as a first step.

I have set out these ideas in http://home.btconnect.com/richardlewis41/Space/Unification.htm

I have some conceptual difficulty with your idea of accelerated photons but I am impressed that you have been able to work through the mathematical analysis to show an equivalence with curved spacetime.

Regards
Harmony
 
This 8-page paper meanders and immediately makes one suspect the author has no experience in these matters.
Piotr Ogonowski said:
In this paper we also refer to Max Planck’s Natural Units introduced in 1899. Let us then denote following designnations:
$$\begin{array}{ll} t_{\tiny P} & \textrm{Planck's time}\\ l_{\tiny P} & = c t_{\tiny P} \\E_{\tiny P} & = \frac{\hbar}{t_{\tiny P}} = \frac{l_{\tiny P} \cdot c^4}{G}\, \textrm{Planck's Energy} \\ \hbar & = \frac{h}{2 \pi} = E_{\tiny P} \cdot t_{\tiny P} \, \textrm{reduced Planck's action} \end{array}$$
Click to expand...
Not for the last time does the author state a proportionality only to solve it on the next line. $$c$$ is inconsistently assumed to equal 1 and then explicitly used. Clearly beyond his expertise, he ignores general relativity and talks about the Schwarzschild solution and then mangles the metric to talk about "geodesics". (Before equation 11 he means null geodesics but the journal editors didn't catch this.) Equation 14 doesn't follow from anything introduced prior to it. And then the paper slides downhill from there.
 
rpenner said:
This 8-page paper meanders and immediately makes one suspect the author has no experience in these matters.
Not for the last time does the author state a proportionality only to solve it on the next line. $$c$$ is inconsistently assumed to equal 1 and then explicitly used. Clearly beyond his expertise, he ignores general relativity and talks about the Schwarzschild solution and then mangles the metric to talk about "geodesics". (Before equation 11 he means null geodesics but the journal editors didn't catch this.) Equation 14 doesn't follow from anything introduced prior to it. And then the paper slides downhill from there.
Click to expand...
Rpenner,
The problem with your comment is that those who are experienced with mathematics, GR & QM are not pushing physics to the next level: gravity field generators. You and Alphanumeric are just finding morer complicated ways to express Newtonian gravity. This is safe for you, but not terribly useful to humanity. The apex of safe physics is the global positioning system. I used it last month when they closed some streets. GPS is less useful then the stapler I use every day. I use a paperclip about as often as I use GPS. GPS is the grand acheivement of safe physics. Oh, and GPS could be used to drop an ICBM on any target within inches of the pre-programmed coordinates.

Why don't you use your experience in QM and GR to come up with an experiment that attempts to curve space-time using light? The idea of accelerating photons, without changing their velocity, is the precursor to the gravity drive. That's called: INNOVATION. Where is your innovation?
 
Mazulu said:
Rpenner,
The problem with your comment is that those who are experienced with mathematics, GR & QM are not pushing physics to the next level: gravity field generators. You and Alphanumeric are just finding morer complicated ways to express Newtonian gravity. This is safe for you, but not terribly useful to humanity. The apex of safe physics is the global positioning system. I used it last month when they closed some streets. GPS is less useful then the stapler I use every day. I use a paperclip about as often as I use GPS. GPS is the grand acheivement of safe physics. Oh, and GPS could be used to drop an ICBM on any target within inches of the pre-programmed coordinates.

Why don't you use your experience in QM and GR to come up with an experiment that attempts to curve space-time using light? The idea of accelerating photons, without changing their velocity, is the precursor to the gravity drive. That's called: INNOVATION. Where is your innovation?
Click to expand...

DARPA does put funding into exploring the idea and potential of anti-gravity drives. See, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=darpa-casimir-effect-research.

It is not like no one thinks that it is not worth putting funding into the concept. It is an issue of where funding may return some reasonable expectaion of results, even where those results may not include a successful gravity propulsion system.

As a disclaimer, I think DARPA also put money into the exploration of psychic abilities to be used as weapons. So DARPA funding in and of itself, should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
OnlyMe said:
DARPA does put funding into exploring the idea and potential of anti-gravity drives. See, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=darpa-casimir-effect-research. It is not like no one thinks that it is not worth putting funding into the concept. It is an issue of where funding may return some reasonable expectaion of results, even where those results may not include a successful gravity propulsion system. As a disclaimer, I think DARPA also put money into the exploration of psychic abilities to be used as weapons. So DARPA funding in and of itself, should be taken with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
Actually, it was the Casimir effect that strongly influenced my "aether medium made of waves" idea. From the article,
Vacuums generally are thought to be voids, but Hendrik Casimir believed these pockets of nothing do indeed contain fluctuations of electromagnetic waves.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much luck their going to have make antigravity by using two plates. My idea was to use one plate (antenna/emitter) that emits an EM linear chirp repeatedly so that it looks like gravitational redshift. I think that is the right strategy to exert a curvature in space-time.

As for training psychics as weapons, I agree, it's a stupid idea. That's like training normal people to act trollish. Why do we need more bad people in the world?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top