The Trouble With Physics

Is Our world Ruled by Four Fundamental Forces?

Posted on Friday, December 18, 2015 at 09:26AM by  Doug |  Post a Comment |  Print
Fundamental physics theorists in the legacy physics community continue to be perplexed by the
challenges facing them. So much so that now some of them are entertaining philosophical
arguments, which promise to get them off the hook.

In a conference in Germany, as reported in a Quanta Magazine article, the heaviest of the heavy

discussed it for two days.

The photo above, heading up the article, conveys the angst of it all. Because of untestable
string theory, these physicists find themselves in a “battle for the heart and soul of [legacy]
physics.”

However, the trouble with physics started long before string theory first beguiled physicists into
redefining elementary particles of matter, as elementary vibrations, in hopes of solving the
dilemma facing them when trying to reconcile the incompatible theories of quantum mechanics
and general relativity.
It was Dewey B. Larson, the amateur investigator friend of Linus Pauling, who pointed out to
them long ago that they were fooling themselves, by not recognizing that there cannot be any
such thing as autonomous forces, as legacy physics has come to regard them.

These physicists have been led down a dead-end road by their impressive successes for more
than half a century, and they just can’t let it go after all these generations of stellar university
careers and elite professions, which have built and played with Western civilization’s
magnificent colliding machines.

That they can understand and predict the paths of debris coming from highly energetic collisions
of elementary particles is intoxicating, but the inevitable hang-over comes with the dawn of
realization that they can’t get there from here. In the words of Stephen Weinberg, “[They] are
stuck.”

In an article last month, Professor Lance Dixon of Stanford University, explained his group’s

non-string theory approach to searching for a successful quantum theory of gravity, a theory
that would be compatible with quantum mechanics and the standard model of particle physics.

The article is written for a general audience, so Dixon begins by declaring: “Our world is ruled by
four fundamental forces,” and then he proceeds to explain how three of these theoretical forces
are understood, but the fourth is not

With the exception of gravity, we can describe nature’s fundamental forces using the concepts
of quantum mechanics. In these theories, which are summarized in the Standard Model of
particle physics, forces are the result of an exchange of tiny quanta of information between
interacting particles. Electric charges, for instance, attract or repel each other by exchanging
photons – quanta of light that carry the electromagnetic force. The strong and weak forces
have corresponding carriers called gluons and W and Z bosons, respectively.

We routinely use these theories to calculate the outcome of subatomic processes with
extraordinary precision. For example, we can make accurate predictions for the complex
proton-proton collisions at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, the most powerful man-made particle
accelerator.

But gravity is different. Although Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity explains gravity on
larger scales as the result of massive objects distorting the fabric of space-time, it doesn’t tell
us anything about what happens to subatomic particles gravitationally. Quantum gravity is an
attempt to combine Einstein’s general relativity with quantum mechanics. In analogy to the
other forces, we predict gravity to be mediated by a force carrier as well, the graviton.

“Mediated by a force carrier,” he says. If you find this statement perplexing, you are not alone.
To get to the bottom of its meaning, you’re welcome to delve into the stacks of books and
papers on particle physics trying to explain it, but, in the end, you will probably benefit more
from the young man explaining it in the following video than from anything else:

How Bosons Mediate A Force

Professor Dixon and the rest of legacy physics theorists do not hesitate to exclaim how
impressively successful this theory of virtual particles, different ones carried by various
elementary particles, has been. Even Linus Pauling, way back in the days of Richard Feynman,
tried to convince his friend Dewey, that the thinking for fundamental physics had been done and
that it was a waste of time and resources to entertain any alternative.
Of course, today they are all deceased, but the younger generation, as we can see in the video
above, are not taught and have no idea of the errors that are being propagated, by this belief
that there is no alternative to the thinking that constitutes the program of Newtonian physics, still
in play today, which assumes that reality consists of fundamental particles existing on the stage
of space and time, ruled by fundamental forces.

Clearly, they should ponder the picture above.

Our Preon Toy Model Continues to Amaze Us

Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 08:39PM by  Doug |  Post a Comment |  Print
Dr. Randell Mills is at odds with the Legacy System of Theory (LST) community over its concept
of the electron and the atom. Randy has his own theory of these physical entities, which has
placed him smack dab in the middle of the cold fusion controversy, the free-energy controversy,
and the interpretation of quantum mechanics controversy.

He disavows the first, he explains that the second is misunderstood, but he takes the third
controversy head-on. He has a new replacement theory, based on a reconsideration of the
postulates of traditional quantum mechanics, which he claims “has given rise to a closed form
solution of a Schrodinger-like wave equation, based on first principles.”

In general, his contention is that traditional QM is mathematical, not physical, and that’s why the
physical interpretation is so mysterious. He asserts that all the trouble stems from the
assumption of the boundary condition of the Schrodinger equation, which assumes that “the
wavefunction goes to zero as the radius goes to infinity.” In his theory, “an extended distribution
of charge may accelerate without radiating energy.”

Unlike Larson, however, he produces a prodigious mountain of mathematics to accomplish his

work, which is impressively comprehensive. He writes:

From two basic equations, the key building blocks of organic chemistry have been solved,
allowing the true physical structure, charge distribution, and parameters of an infinite number
of organic molecules of boundless extent and complexity to be obtained including proteins,
RNA, and DNA. These equations were also applied to other major fields of chemistry,
fundamental forms of matter, bonding, and behavior such as the allotropes of carbon, the solid
bond of silicon and the semiconductor bond, the ionic bond, the metallic bond, bonding in
condensed matter such as dipole-dipole, hydrogen, and van der Waals bonds, bonding of
silicon, tin, aluminum, boron, organometallics, coordinate compounds, and other classes of
compounds and materials, reaction kinetics, and thermodynamics.

Also like Larson, he doesn’t stop there at the microcosm, but is audacious enough to go on to
treat cosmology, as well:

Further, the Schwarzschild Metric is derived by applying Maxwell’s Equations to electromagnetic

and gravitational fields at particle production. This modifies General Relativity to include
conservation of spacetime and gives the origin of gravity, the masses of fundamental particles,
the acceleration of the expansion of the universe (predicted by Dr. Mills in 1995 and since
confirmed experimentally), and overturns the Big Bang model of the origin of the universe.

Quite impressive stuff, indeed. Yet, the LST community is not exactly beating a path to his door.
He is not invited to speak at their theoretical conferences, or awarded any of their prestigious
prizes, primarily because his theory justifies a form of hydrogen the energy of which is claimed
to be a fraction of the known “ground state” of hydrogen, which makes him a pariah among the
professionals.
According to traditional QM theory, these fractional states of hydrogen, dubbed “hydrinos,” by
Mills, cannot exist, and therefore modern physicists in the LST community criticize Mills’ work
and reject the physical evidence he presents, even though it is claimed to have been confirmed
by independent investigations.

The fact that Mills has been trying to patent and commercialize the production of hydrinos, since
the late Twentieth Century, doesn’t help matters, though. To be fair, however, the establishment
actively resisted his patent efforts politically, attempting to have his patents denied, based on
scientific, if not economic and thus political bias, delaying his success for eleven years.

Indeed, I’m surprised that the man is still alive, given the iconoclastic nature of his ideas and the
incredible social impact of their potential, if brought to fruition. That’s because producing energy
from hydrino technology would not only make it possible to dramatically reduce energy costs
across the board, making it so inexpensive and ubiquitous that it ceases to be a significant
factor in the course of human affairs, destroying oil-based economies in the process, but it
would also revolutionize physical theory, destroying QM-based acacemia and research
institutions, that depend upon the mystery of QM to maintain the funding of their aloof fiefdoms.

Yet, in spite of all the opposition, Mills may be on the verge of triumph. He demonstrated the key
components of his technology last July and reportedly demoed a prototype “SunCell” to
investors, raising $16 million dollars in production funding, in September, as a result. Now the
world is waiting with bated breath, as 2015 gets underway.

In the meantime, I was curious to understand how the LRC model of hydrinos would fare. It
didn’t take long to discover that it fares well, although it may take some courage to publish it. It’s
easy to see that our preon model of the electron and the photon allows for increasing the energy
of the hydrogen atom from the ground state to an excited state, by absorbtion of photons:

   +      = 
When the electron absorbs the photon, the S|T unbalance (qualitatively indicated by the color at
the nodes a, b and c, in the figure above) is not affected. Thus, no change in the “charge” of the
electron, going from ground state (1/2, red), to an excited state (1/2 + 1/1 = 2/3, red) is realized,
even though the actual number of the S|T units in the ratio is doubled, by the event.

However, going to a lower state, a fraction of the ground state, is not so easy, since obviously it
can’t be done by adding S|T balanced units of the photons (S|T = 1/1, green) to the unbalanced
S|T units of the electron (S|T = 1/2, red), as happens in the excited state transitions.

In Mills theory, the electron gives up energy from its central field to a catalyst, through a “non-
radiative” process of energy transfer, more like a potential - kinetic energy exchange, which, of
course, he must do, in a theory formed within the Newtonian system of theory, based on the
vectorial motion of classical physics.

The LRC model, however, has no recourse to such motion, since our model is strictly based on
the scalar motion of the Reciprocal System of Physical Theory (RST). Consequently, we are
forced to add the unbalanced units of another boson to the electron, the W- boson, in order to
“lower” the energy of the hydrogen-bound electron by some “fraction,” and form a hydrino.

Certainly, this is going to be problematic, since the W- boson incorporated into the standard
model is so short lived, it can only be presumed to exist. Nevertheless, in our RST-based
model, it is a combination of S|T units that must exist, because it is one of the 20 possible
combinations of S|T units (16 fermions and 4 bosons). Whether it is short lived or not, would
depend on the environment in which it finds itself.

Nevertheless, combining this boson with an electron bound in an hydrogen atom, in our toy
model, is as straightforward as combining such an electron with a photon boson:

   +      =   

But now, by this process, the unbalanced S|T ratio (charge) doubles! It goes from S|T = 1/2 to
S|T = (1/2 + 1/2) = 2/4. Therefore, the electron charge changes from -1 to -2, and the electron’s
orbit moves closer to the nucleus (in the LST model), by a fraction (1/2) energy-wise in the new
hydrino state.

Now, this may still take place “non-radiatively,” if there is an equivalent phonon vibration in the
catalyst equivalent to the W- boson. In other words, it may be a kinetic - potential energy
exchange just as Mills theory requires.

Well, I wrote to Mills and we have had a few short discussions about it, but, understandably, he
is in no position to comprehend the LRC’s RST-based model, and so remains unconvinced,
seeing it as numerology. I imagine that only empirical evidence would be convincing enough to
get him to consider it, but his people are not looking to see a change in e-, so it’s not likely to be
discovered, by them, if it actually exists.

The exciting thing for us, though, is that this just might prove to be a prediction of the LRC’s
RST-based model of scalar motion combinations.

Wow.

Update: March 13, 2015

The Missing Principle
Posted on Saturday, November 1, 2014 at 08:48AM by  Doug |  Post a Comment |  Print
Dr. David Gross, in a recent talk given at New York University, surveyed the past, the present and
the future of theoretical physics. He concluded, once again, that the challenge lies in finding a
new concept of space-time. “We suspect,” he says, “that space-time,” which is the non-
dynamical basis for a framework of quantum fields, and the dynamical basis for string theory, as
he describes it,  “is emergent.”

So, given this reality, the question that arises is, “What are the rules of physics without
spacetime?” He has no answer, of course, but the legacy system of theoretical physics ( LST), “is
alive and well,” he assures us, because it is in this “period of utter confusion.”

The only idea he foresees with any hope is to switch the system from one originating in fixed-
space concepts, extending to the dynamics of space-time (quantum gravity), to one somehow
originating in time, extending to space-time, where fixed-space is emergent.

The trouble is, of course, he knows of no one who knows how to do that, or even where to
begin. Hence, the LST community is “stuck,” as Steven Weinberg put it many years ago, and
David Gross just puts the same grim conclusion in more expansive terms, when he asks, “What
is the framework of theoretical physics?” The “True answer is,” he says, “we have no idea!”
He goes on to say, “We have no idea how to even formulate it, what the boundaries are, or what
the rules are, the equations, the thing that replaces the path intregal, the action, or anything like
that.” To be a true framework of theoretical physics, the current collection of “tools” used to
calculate quantum states that are consistent, must have a principle that is missing, he
proclaims. This missing principle, or theory, of symmetry, of dynamics, of consistentcy, of
(whatever), would lead us to a UNIQUE solution of cosmology, not a vacuum, but a space-time.

Well, as you can imagine, this talk is just as provocative for those of us familiar with Dewey B.
Larson’s works, as his earlier talks, given about eight years ago, when he said essentially the
same thing:

In string theory I think we’re in sort of a pre-revolutionary stage. We have hit upon, somewhat
accidentally, an incredible theoretical structure…but we still haven’t made a very radical break
with conventional physics. We’ve replaced particles with strings—that in a sense is the most
revolutionary aspect of the theory. But all of the other concepts of physics have been left
untouched…many of us believe that that will be insufficient…That at some point, a much more
drastic revolution or discontinuity in our system of beliefs will be required. And that this
revolution will likely change the way we think about space and time.

His confidence in string theory may have waned somewhat since then, but the same “revolution,
or discontinuity in our system of beliefs,” is still required, according to Gross.

That the Reciprocal System of Physical Theory (RST) is just such a revolution in the frameword
of theoretical physics is clear, but only amatures and little league professionals are able to
recognize it at this point. It is the missing principle, a system based on the concept of scalar
motion coming before the vectorial motion of matter. One which forms the boundaries of a fixed
reference system, at the moment a space/time oscillation (a SUDR, or a TUDR) comes into
existence.

When such an entity exists, a zero-dimensional point is definable. When two such entities exist,
a one-dimensional line between them is definable. When three such entities exists, not all in a
line, a two-dimensional area between them is definable. When four or more of these entities
exist, not all in a plane, a three-dimensional volume between them is definable.

Thus, because the distances between these points is measurable, in terms of elapsed
space/time, so-called space-time, or geometry, emerges. The known rules of geometry and
physics apply to this newly defined space, over time, and effect further combinations of the two
oscillating entities, in ways that are observed.

Matter emerges in the pattern of logical combinations of these entities, as they form, from
simple to complex. The properties of these combinations, including “charge,” “mass” and “spin,”
proceed from the nature of these combinations, or relations between them, but, ultimately, they
are nothing but combinations of scalar motion, the new principle of space/time reciprocity. which
is missing from the current framework of theoretical physics.

Debate: Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

Posted on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 11:37AM by  Doug |  Post a Comment |  Print
The question that Larson answered for me a long time ago was debated recently by well known
personalities in the LST community. They actually changed the question from “Why?” to “How?”
but I can’t see much difference. To ask, “How is it that something can come from nothing?” may
be clearer, than “Why is it there is something rather than nothing?” but, in either case, nothing
has to be defined and that is the key.

They talk about virtual particles in a vacuum being nothing, because they can’t be measured,
but becoming real, when, say, a positron and electron are produced, the energy and charges of
this pair of particles balancing out to zero. This is a highly unlikely and unsatisfying manipulation
of ad hoc definitions to my mind. 

I agree, though, that the definition of nothing has to be modified to something that is nothing,
because it can’t be measured, like the balance of a scale. It points to 0 when it’s balanced, but
that doesn’t necessarily mean that nothing is on either side. It can also mean that two, equal
quantities are on opposite sides of the scale, which can be changed, unbalancing the scale and
therefore producing something.

Interestingly enough, the definition of nothing as something that cannot be measured, brings up
the question of law. If we define nothing as something undetectable, which turns into something
detectable, it has to do so as a matter of law. A law must govern nothing that transforms it into a
lawful something.

However, in the LST community, an anthropomorphic set of infinite environs now sits opposed
to this legalistic determinism of traditional thought. The 10^500 possibilities of the vacua facing
string theory imply that there are that many possible sets of laws that can be observed by any
observer who may be part of a given system, meaning nothing has meaning in an absolute
sense, which has led to the idea of multiverses.

Unfortunately, Larson’s ideas cannot be brought to the LST table of discussion, but we can see
their power and beauty, by imagining that they were permitted. Larson defines nothing as a
perfect balance between the rates of changing quantities of space and changing quantities of
time. Given a change of unit space, for each change of unit time, defines a unit motion that
cannot be measured.

The law of this nothing that is something is the fundamental law of algebraic relations, the
greater than, less than or equal to relations of these two changing quantities that define nothing,
when they are in equilibrium. This law of algebraic relations governs the universe of motion, for
by it something comes from nothing, when the equilibrium of the two rates of change is altered.

It is astounding to me that from this law all the elements of the standard model emerge. The
less thans are connected to the more thans, and these become the equal tos, which are
compounded into different equal tos, of greater and greater power, and these three are
compoundable into combinations of balanced and unbalanced more thans, less thans and equal
tos, which just happen to form the exact number of different kinds of particles and anti-particles
found in the standard model of LST particle physics.

But then, if that were not enough, these fundamental combinations compound, still following the
same algebraic law, into combinations identical to the protons and neutrons of the LST nuclear
physics, which, along with the electron, compound into the 117 elements of the LST chemistry,
forming the periodic table of elements. 

It remains to learn more about how they combine and uncombine and otherwise relate to each
other, but even this much would make for a much more interesting discussion at the LST table
than the boring speculation about the multiverse that their current discussion inevitably devolves
to.

Where Does the Motion Come From?

Posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 06:17AM by  Doug |  9 Comments |  1 Reference |  Print
In an interesting panel discussion called the 2011 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Theory of
Everything, many interesting theoretical and philosophical observations were made by the
panelists on theoretical physics, mostly on string theory. 

The thing that struck me the most, however, as the discussion went along, was how the concept
of energy was central to all aspects of the discussion. Finally, with about seven minutes to go, a
lady in the audience asked the obvious question, which Brian Green answered (see 1:32:0 in
the video).
“What causes the vibrations of the strings?” she asked. Brian’s answer was as simple as it gets:
“I don’t know,” he confessed. This is a question of where in the universe is the energy to move
the strings coming from? The question is profound, not because we need to know, we don’t, but
because it reveals the fundamental paradigm of the legacy system of physical theory (LST),
which is important to understand, if we want to understand the nature of the trouble with
physics: Energy is required to move. 

The motion of massive entities requires energy and the motion of massless entities requires
energy, and the ultimate source of that energy must be assumed to exist, in the LST paradigm.
In an earlier observation by another panelist, it was noted that the understanding of theoretical
physicists working on the unification of the forces of the LST community’s standard model with
gravity is that these four forces are really one force at some very high energy.

My reaction to the view points of the panelists, which are really different views on the correct
path to seeking the answer to the question, “Why is there something, rather than nothing,” as
Brian Green put it, was almost visceral, because I’m convinced that the energy paradigm, as I’ll
call it, is so misleading.

If we assume that motion itself is an entity in it’s own right, without regard to changing the
locations of massive or massless objects, then we are actually, in a sense, inverting the LST
energy paradigm, from energy, which is the inverse of motion, to motion: A new paradigm based
on v = Δs/Δt, rather than the old paradigm based on E = Δt/Δs, changes everything profoundly.

The amazing fact that this change immediately places our thoughts in the realm of fundamental
magnitudes, dimensions and “directions” of geometry and algebra, as found in the ancient
tetraktys, and enables us to convert units of motion (s 3/t3) into units of mass (t3/s3) that occupy
relative locations in space and time, and units of mass into units of momentum (t 2/s2), which is
mass changing relative locations of space and time, and units of mass into units of energy (t/s),
which converts mass back into motion, presents us with a wonderland of units of motion,
combinations of units of motion and relations between units of motion that literally teases us out
of thought, with its transcendent beauty and intriguing mysteries.

The fact that all of this comes out of unit motion at high speed, instead of out of unit force at
high energy, is very encouraging. 

The trouble with physics is the failure to recognize that the energy of the universe comes from
the motion of the universe. It would be a great step forward to remedy this error, even though it
won’t answer the real question, “Where does the motion of the universe come from?”

LST Preon Theory Leaps Into Pages of Scientific American

Posted on Monday, December 3, 2012 at 07:39AM by  Doug |  Post a Comment |  Print
How exciting. Don Lincoln, an author and senior physicist at Femilab, who also does research at
CERN, and who makes interesting video tutorials on particle physics for the public, has
published an article on preons in the November issue of Scientific American. 

I am happy to be back, after a six-month hiatus, but certainly never expected to be greeted with
such good news. For some reason, I didn’t know about Lincoln, or that anyone other
than Sundance Bilson-Thompson took preons seriously.

The Scientific American article is entitled “The Inner Life of Quarks,” which is only available
online with subscription, but you can read it under another title here.

My first impulse was to contact Mr. Lincoln and see if he could be enticed enough by the
success of our own preon model to investigate the Universe of Motion, but alas I’m afraid I’m
too late as he is about to achieve escape velocity on his way to star status with his Scientific
American article and a possible TED lecture next year (see here.) Now he will undoubtedly be
swamped with so much attention and email that he will be virtually unreachable. 
Already, people like Lubos Motl and Peter Woit have weighed in to explain why preons can’t
exist, and I doubt that Sean Carroll could be far behind. However, as always we must remember
that new wine requires new bottles.

Our new bottle is not going to break under the pressure of arguments such as those pressed by
Motl and Woit, because it’s a new system of theory that doesn’t posit that matter exists in space-
time, but rather that matter consists of space and time. They argue that quarks and leptons are
already “point-like,” whatever that means, thus excluding anything smaller. I wrote previously
about some of the difficulties with that line of thinking here.

The trouble with physicists looking for smaller particles to fit inside their “point-like” particles are
many, but our preons are not particles and our particles are not “point-like.” Our preons are S|T
units, consisting of combinations of SUDRs and TUDRs, which are unit 3D oscillations of space
and time respectively.

The LRC’s preons are not massive, but their combinations as quarks and leptons are massive.
Yet, this is not a matter of cancellations of mass and energy contributions, in effect masking
massive preons, but rather a matter of mass emerging from geometric configuration: The S|T
units are massless (i.e. they propagate at c-speed relative to matter,) until they form quarks and
leptons, which prevents them from propagating relative to matter. In other words, they become
“massive” precisely because they can no longer propagate at c-speed, when they combine, for
geometric reasons.

That’s not to say we don’t have major theoretical challenges with our theory. We do, but they
are entirely different problems than those presented by the legacy system of theory ( LST). And
who knows, now that the preon theory is on the table in a more prominent fashion, maybe we
will attract more interest in the Reciprocal System of Physical Theory ( RST).

That would seemed deserved from the fact alone that our preon sub-structure of quarks and
leptons turns out to be so similar to that described in Lincoln’s article. Notice the table of the
1979 preon model of Harari and Shupe that Lincoln illustrates in his article:
Table 1. The Harari and Shupe 1979 Preon Model of Quarks and Leptons

According to Lincoln, Harari and Shupe came up with the same model independently. This is
amazing in itself, but then we came up with the same model just from developing the
consequences of the RST. To be sure, our clue came from Sundance, and he undoubtedly
knew of Harari and Shupe’s work, but we didn’t and the natural fit was readily accepted to
advance the development of our RST-based theory, not to discover an underlying order to unify
superficially different particles of matter, in an LST-based theory.

We were not positing the existence of +/- 1/3 and +/- 2/3 LST electric charges, with no
theoretical definition of them. We were just exploring the combinations of well-defined unit
space and unit time speed displacements, two simple building blocks that are logical
consequences of the RST, and they ended up forming the same pattern as the successful preon
pattern that LST physicists have devised.

The difference between the LRC preon model and the H&S model is, again, the difference
between space and time speed displacements and fractional electrical charges. Our preon
model defines the negative charge of the electron in terms of more space speed-displacement
than time speed-displacement, and the positive charge of the positron in terms of more time
speed-displacement than space speed-displacement.
Table 2. The Harari and Shupe 1979 Preon Model of Bosons

We only have one version of the Z boson and the +/- W bosons are different in that they consist
of unbalanced S|T units in the parallel configuration. This highlights the difference between the
LST entity of 0 charge and (0) anti-charge, and the RST entity of balanced speed-displacement
(-)<—->(+) and its inverse (+)<—->(-).

For example, our -W boson is configured as three net negative combinations,

(- -)<—->(+)
(+)<—->(- -)
(- -)<—->(+)

and our +W boson is configured as three net positive combinations,

(-)<—->(++)
(++)<—->(-)
(-)<—->(++)

which makes the Z boson configuration three balanced combinations of three SUDRs and three
TUDRs each, or the combination of the -W and +W bosons,

(- - -)<—->(+++) 
(+++)<—->(- - -)
(- - -)<—->(+++) 

That this leads to a correct understanding of beta decay, not to mention things such as quantum
spin and quantum gravity, is just one more indication that the RST-based theory, and its preon
model is able to seriously play with the big guys.

When do we get an article in Scientific American?

The "Illusion" of Time

Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 05:13PM by  Doug |  3 Comments |  Print
Last night, the second installment of Nova’s program, “The Fabric of the Cosmos” aired. As
expected, this episode, “The Illusion of Time,” was just as grating as the last one, “The Fabric of
Space.”
The reason is that they treated space and time as “spacetime,” focusing on Einstein’s discovery
of how vector motion affects time. It doesn’t occur to any of them, as far as I can tell (and I am
familiar with the ideas of most of the physicists on the program), that the reason motion affects
time is that time is an aspect of motion. Instead, they view time as something mysteriously apart
from motion.

They make a big deal out of the arrow of time, and the fact that the forward direction of time is
not incorporated into the laws of physics (i.e. the equations can be reversed as far as time is
concerned without changing the result.) However, they don’t seem to notice that, if
all motion stops, then so does time, since time can only be measured by motion.

Sitting there, I thought, what if all motion in the universe really did stop, so that it became frozen
at absolute zero? Then, what if all the frozen objects were removed from the universe? Would
anything be left? According to the big bang theory, the amount of space in the universe, as well
as the amount of matter, is finite. Therefore, the amount of space in the emptied universe would
be some measurable quantity.

Now, if this quantity of space in the emptied universe were to be subsequently increased

somehow, it would have to be increased over time, or if the amount of space were decreased, it
would have to be decreased over time. Clearly, there is no other way, and we know that space is
indeed increasing in the universe.

Similarly, if time were increased… - but wait a minute - what does it mean to increase the
amount of time in the universe? When all objects are removed from a frozen universe, does a
finite amount of time exist in it at that point? I guess their answer would be that a certain amount
of spacetime exists (imagine a loaf of bread containing slices of time), but what does this mean?
Does it mean that for every cubic light-year of space there is a cubic light-year of time?

Certainly not. We can’t say this, because time is zero dimensional; that is, it is a scalar
magnitude, with no direction in space. So, then, how much time is in the hypothetically frozen
universe? The only way to express it is as a scalar quantity, a number that tells us how many
moments passed since the beginning (i.e. since the big bang in their cosmology). But what does
the number representing the elapsed time of the universal expansion mean, if not that a certain
quantity of motion, or a certain increase of space over time, occurred since the big bang?

The trouble is, of course, this scenario requires a point of view that is outside the universe, since
no observer can exist in the frozen universe by definition. However, if we admit this God-view,
then it is clear that time would have to continue for the observer, but if we don’t admit it, then the
observer’s observation stops at the moment the universe is frozen, and we must conclude that
time stops as well.

But what do we mean, then, when we say space and time are frozen? Obviously we mean that
the continuous increase of space and time has hypothetically ceased. Now, what should be just
as obvious, is that the subsequent increase of either one cannot begin without the increase of
the other; that is, an observable change in the magnitude of space requires some change in the
magnitude of time, while an observable increase in the magnitude time requires some change in
the magnitude of space.

One might argue that, while space can’t increase without a corresponding change in time, time
could conceivably increase without a concomitant increase in space. The trouble with that
argument however, is that one could never know. Time can only be measured over space, just
as space can only be measured over time. Without a change in space, it’s not possible to detect
a change in time. The bottom line here is that a change in space requires a change in time as
well, and vice versa.

Yet, an LST physicists might want to still argue that motion is defined as a change of position,
not a change in size, and in a universe without objects, motion itself is not detectable. How can
one determine that the size of an empty universe is changing? There aren’t any grid lines to
indicate a change of scale. He would be right, of course, but, by the same token, he would also
have to believe that the space of a universe that was expanding with matter, could reasonably
be expected not to expand without matter. This is a pretty difficult argument to make.

It’s easy to see that the discussion would quickly lead to consideration of the so-called dark
energy and dark matter, but we will have to wait for a future episode of the program to get into
that. 

The "Fabric" of Nothing

Posted on Thursday, November 3, 2011 at 06:29AM by  Doug |  Post a Comment |  Print
Last night I watched the Nova program “What is Space?”, the first hour of the series by Brian
Green, based on his book, The Fabric of of the Cosmos. In the text on the program’s page at
the NOVA website they talk about clues which indicate that space is something, not nothing, but
in the film the scientists don’t describe these clues as indications of anything. They speak as if
the clues were facts of something.

However, these “facts” are unraveling. They are proving to be quite elusive for researchers at
the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiments. So far, they have found no evidence that the
strings of finite length, which are supposed to be composed of vibrating nothingness, exist in the
extra dimensions that the theorists have imagined to contain them.

Without strings, or more precisely, without the extra dimensions in which to imagine length of
strings in various modes of vibration, the concept of the fabric of space that somehow can be
twisted and warped enough to move objects, exposes the contradiction between the “facts” of
general relativity that lead to small distances in extremely warped space and the “facts” of
quantum field theory that posits virtual charges popping in and out of warped space at the same
time.

This situation must embarrass LST theorists to no end, but they don’t act or talk like it does.
Instead, they make movies for the masses, playing with computer graphics, like children in a
high tech science museum, who don’t understand the science, but are fascinated by the
displays and models that can be played with anyway.

Here’s the point: There is no point. There is no point that can be consistently defined as having
no spatial extent, but yet can carry a charge on its non-existent surface, like an electron or
positron. If nothing is perfect, something must be imperfect, by definition, but then how can
something come from nothing?

Thus, the very definition of particle, let alone that of space, is jeopardized by their convoluted
theories. Regardless, they press on, looking for a Higgs “particle” to get them out of the
impasse, by providing a field to generate a force of gravity, which presumably would do away
with the concept of warpable space, generating gravity without force.

We have to give them credit, though, because, even though they are looking through a glass
darkly, they get many things right. They have the speed of light right and the relations that
govern the electromagnetic fields right. These form the corner piece of the puzzle they are seeking
to solve, and there’s probably no going back from those first principles, but to replace the dark
glass with something more transparent, they are going to have to recognize the fudges that they
have accepted in several of their fundamental concepts, most notably in the concepts of motion
and force, but also in the concept of points. 

However, to get the concept of point right, they have to get the concept of motion right first. A
start would be to consider that the simplification of Dirac’s equation for the electron, through the
application of Feynman’s model, invoking quantum field theory, described by Penrose’s “zigs”
and “zags,” the “zitterbewegung” of Dirac’s theory and the crux of Hestenes’ work on the electron,
could really be a three-dimensional, space/time oscillation.

A three-dimensional space/time oscillation has to be scalar motion, by definition, since it

involves a change of size, a simultaneous 1D, 2D and 3D change of size. However, by the
failure to recognize such an oscillation as an example of scalar motion, and, therefore,
the redefinition of a point that this requires, the mathematicians keep getting all tangled up in their
universe of imaginary numbers. Clearly, as John Baez now admits, this experience is like
“wading through molasses” (see here.)

Redefining space and time as simply the reciprocal aspects of motion changes the rules of the
game entirely, but without throwing out what we already know that is true, just what we know
that is not true.

The next episode of Brian’s NOVA program is entitled, “What is time?” A concept even more
enigmatic than the concept of space, to be sure.

The Score: Larson's RST 3, Newton's LST 0

Posted on Friday, October 14, 2011 at 04:11AM by  Doug |  2 Comments |  Print
Several years ago, as President of ISUS, I led the fight to document Larson’s RST in Wikipedia.
It was arguably one of the most protracted Wikipedia struggles ever waged at the time
(everything has been deleted since then). We eventually lost the battle and everything about
Larson was deleted, ostensibly on the grounds that Larson’s work constitutes original research.
A while later, another member of ISUS managed to write a short biographical article, which was
deleted just last week, after being in existence for several years. This time the reason given for
deleting the article was that Larson is too obscure a figure, and he and his work are not
“notable.”

Resisting the urge to rant over this, I just want to point out for the record, in this the most
obscure of blogs, that Larson’s Reciprocal System of Physical Theory (RST), the universe of
motion, is proving to be much more successful than Newton’s system of physical theory, which
we refer to as the Legacy System of Physical Theory (LST), in the fundamental assumptions each
brings to the table vis-à-vis the observations of experimentalists.

The LST’s fundamental assumption is that nature can be explained in terms of a few
fundamental interactions among a few fundamental particles. These particles are assumed to
exist within the framework of space and time. True, the framework has been greatly modified
over time, as the LST transformed it via the enigmatic and incompatible principles of relativity
and quantum mechanics, but Newton’s system of physical theory, his program of research, we
might say, has remained unchanged.

In contrast, the program of research that pertains to Larson’s universe of motion is based on the
assumption that there are no fundamental particles playing upon the stage of space and time.
His new system assumes that space and time do not exist as independent entities, but are
merely two, reciprocal aspects of the one component of the universe, motion, which exists in
discrete units forming the observed particles of matter and anti-matter and explaining their
interactions.

Fortunately, this radical difference, in the fundamental assumptions of the two systems of
physical theory, enables investigators to compare how well observations conform to either
system. For example, to explain the particle interaction of gravity, the LST postulates that the
nature of space must conform to the principles of non-Euclidean geometry, while the RST
emphatically insists that the universe conforms to Euclidean geometry: Recent
observations confirm that the geometry of the universe is exceedingly flat (Euclidean.) Hence,
RST 1, LST 0.

To avoid the difficulty of explaining how a charged point particle (a particle of no spatial extent)
can avoid the embarrassment of the infamous singularity that has plagued the LST for many
decades, scientists resorted to the concept of strings, but this could only be proffered along with
a concomitant introduction of extra physical dimensions, something the RST rules out: Very
recent observations coming from the experiments of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) have
greatly diminished the hopes of ever finding evidence of more than the three observed
dimensions of space and the one of time. Hence, RST 2, LST 0.
Finally, in what may be the final iconoclastic blow to the LST, scientists have discovered that
non-oscillating neutrinos, traveling from the LHC in CERN to Italy, seem to be arriving some 60
nanoseconds ahead of when they should, if they were traveling at the speed of light. Of course,
it wasn’t long ago that neutrinos streaming in from the Sun were found to oscillate between
flavors, giving them a slight mass, which slowed them down below the speed of light. Now, if the
new results are valid, the faster-than-light neutrinos would have to have what we might call, for
lack of a better term, anti-mass, or imaginary valued mass. 

To say the least, there is no room for such superluminal particles, called tachyons, in the LST.
In the RST, on the other hand, they are a necessary and integral part of the system, inhabiting
the cosmic sector of the universe of motion. Hence, RST 3, LST 0.

Perhaps today, Wikipedia is not the place to announce the score in this tête-à-tête contest of the
two systems, but my bet is that, in some future version of this venerable member of the online
community, there will be a place of honor for Dewey B. Larson and his new system of physical
theory.

Update on Saturday, October 29, 2011 at 06:40AM by  Doug

Actually, the score should be RST 4, LST 0, because I forgot to count the LIGO negative result.
The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory was built to detect the gravitational
waves of General Relativity, but after ten years, zero waves have been detected. Of course, this
result is a prediction of the RST, since gravity in the new system originates from the scalar
motion inherent in the gravitating matter itself, and not from the warping of the LST community’s
concept of space-time, arising from the theory of General Relativity. 

By Small Means, Great Things are Brought to Pass

Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 09:24PM by  Doug |  6 Comments |  Print
I tried to point out to John Baez, via Peter Woit’s blog, that by not recognizing that the
“dimensions” of mathematics do not correspond to physical dimensions, the LST community is
tripping up on a small, but very significant, stumbling block.

They equate the four levels of the tetraktys with four different, ad hoc, number systems, based
on the ad hoc use of imaginary numbers: At the first level, 0 imaginary numbers are associated
with the familiar real number system, but adding 1 imaginary number to the reals enables man
to generate the marvelous complex numbers, the second level which provides the foundation of
all the science and technology running the world today.

Recently, another number system has been widely incorporated in computer simulations and
robotics that was invented in the Nineteenth Century, by Sir Hamilton, which is called the
quaternions. Quaternions have found wide application lately, even though their true nature is
misunderstood in most cases. This number system, residing at the third level of the tetraktys,
incorporates three imaginary numbers.

Finally, at the fourth level, the octonions incorporate no less than seven imaginary numbers and
are the subject of Baez’s Scientific American article, which Woit blogged about, because it ties
octonions to string theory, and Woit’s purpose in life is to debunk string theory hype, whereever
and whenever it appears.

However, Woit had to admit that Baez and his co-author were not actually hyping string theory:
They were hyping octonions, declaring that, “if string theory is right, the octonions are not a
useless curiosity: on the contrary, they provide the deep reason why the universe must have 10
dimensions: in 10 dimensions, matter and force particles are embodied in the same type
of numbers—the octonions.”
This is a reference to the supersymmetry of string theory. It turns out that the only way to
describe the elements of the theory without inducing anomalies, is to use the 8 “dimensions” of
octonions plus the two extra dimensions of strings and time - a total of ten “dimensions.”

Of course, I tried to point out that the universe doesn’t have ten dimensions, it only has the three
observed dimensions of space and the one observed dimension of time - the four dimensions of
motion, if you will, and their inverses, but just as the members of the LST community can’t
understand that motion doesn’t have to be one-dimensional, they also can’t seem to understand
that each physical dimension has two “directions,” and that they should look into the
mathematics of ten “directions,” instead of ten “dimensions.”

Unfortunately, however, in our era of political correctness, such views are squelched and Woit
refused to allow my comment on his blog to be published. Oh, well. It’s their loss. We will
continue to apply our meager brain power to the truth and keep plugging along to see what we
can accomplish without their Cadillac brains and resources.

In the next post, I will begin to explain the integration of the geometry of Larson’s Cube, the
mathematics of the tetraktys and the numbers of the new number line, which will enable us to
desribe the preons of our version of the standard model in terms of more than the initial color
combinations we have been using. Now we can put real numbers to the entities in the model,
numbers that are related to the energy levels of the atomic spectra.

Proving once again that many times, by small and simple means, great things are brought to
pass.