
EGH


Total Posts: 82 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"537.88 "
that is right (+ transport, and the book is heavy), the price of my unsigned book is now more pricy than some books of the President of USA (signed). "Aquaman", doubt he can afford it when he finally decides to buy it. The long term price trend is up?
Just in print
Why the Sagnac effect favors absolute over relative simultaneity
"Since Einstein and absolute synchronizations can be discriminated, the conventionality of the oneway speed of light holds no longer."
"Any attempt to justify relative simultaneity will not modify the fact that absolute simultaneity provides a simpler and more coherent way to interpret the linear Sagnac effect."





EGH


Total Posts: 82 
Joined: Nov 2014 


In my (underpriced) book I had no gravity theory, but looks like atomism gives a quantum gravity theory that unifies gravity and quantum mechanics, soon to be submitted to journal (will likely be rejected due to controversial idea, modern physicists have not studied atomism)
Collision SpaceTime Unified Quantum Gravity Gravity is Lorentz symmetry break down at the Planck scale
Both Lorentz symmetry and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle breaks at the Planck scale, and gravity is remarkably the Planck scale. Modern physics have been searching for effects from the Planck scale, they have failed to see all of gravity is the Planck scale. They have failed to see there is a massgap that is linked to time. 



pj


Total Posts: 3522 
Joined: Jun 2004 


General relativity. Great. By the way, does the GPS work in your system?
> Heisenberg uncertainty principle breaks at the Planck scale
Would you care to expand?
Aquaman reference 
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 



EGH


Total Posts: 82 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"By the way, does the GPS work in your system?"
I am not an expert on GPS, but yes GPS clocks are adjusted for the Sagnac effect, and the Sagnac effect is still the same in our model (as first predicted by Sagnac), but we claim at least the Linear Sagnac experimental set up gives inconsistence between assumption of also oneway speed is isotropic together with assumption of relativity of simultaneity. In other words we claim other explanation for Sagnac. Sagnac himself claimed the Sagnac effect was inconsistent with SR. Among supporters of standard theory they cannot agree if the Sagnac effect can be explained only from SR or if one needs GR, and for the ones claiming one need GR they cannot fully agree, as reflected in recent papers
"Despite countless explanations, in more than a hundred years, there are still different interpretations of Sagnac experiment in the framework of the GTR."
E. B. Fabiano, Hooman F. L., and M. C. Corda. On the general relativistic framework of the sagnac effect. The European Physical Journal C, 79, 2019. 



EGH


Total Posts: 82 
Joined: Nov 2014 


> Heisenberg uncertainty principle breaks at the Planck scale
Would you care to expand?
In my model there is only one 100% mass, the Planck mass. The Planck mass is simply the collision between two indivisible particles. The Planck mass only last one Planck second (before the indivisibles move away from each other), and it can therefore only be observed inside one Planck second. To observe it one need to be it basically, and it stands absolute still. In my model at the deepest level there is only Planck mass particles (colliding indivisible particles) and energy (non colliding indivisible particles, moving at the speed of light). All masses we observe such as electrons are in reality both energy and mass, they are the Planck mass c/BarLambda per second, where BarLambda is the reduced Compton wavelength of the electron. This gives the correct electron mass.
The uncertainty in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in my model simply comes from that the indivisibles are moving back and forth over the Compton wavlength at the speed of light (except when colliding when they stand still).
The quantum probabilities I get out from my model (as well as from QM) are one (1) at the observation of Collisions (the Planck mass). There is no uncertainty of the position of a Planck mass. However in for example an electron there is uncertainty.
Well this is better explained in my working papers
Collision SpaceTime. Unified Quantum Gravity. Gravity is Lorentz Symmetry Break Down at the Planck Scale.
Finally a Unified Quantum Gravity Theory! Collision SpaceTime: the Missing Piece of Matter! Gravity is Lorentz and Heisenberg Break Down at the Planck Scale. Gravity Without G
Better and Deeper Quantum Mechanics! Thoughts on a New Definition of Momentum That Makes Physics Simpler and More Consistent (this working paper still needs more work)
Modern physics have missed a few points.
1. De Broglie came up with the matter waveparticle duality idea in 1923 or so. One soon observed wave like properties of matter in experiments. And it was assumed that de Broglie where right, and one developed much of QM around the de Broglie wave. However the same year about; Compton actually observed the Compton wavelength of the electron.
de Broglie (relativistic version)
versus Compton (relativistic version)
Why on earth should one have two different matter waves? If a particle stand still, then the de Broglie wavelength is infinite. This has been interpreted by some/many physicists that the electron can be anywhere in the universe until observed (even if we observed it one millisecond ago inside a small area). This is of course insane interpretations. As I have shown the de Broglie wavelength is just a mathematical derivative of the real matter "wave", which is the Compton wavelength. de Broglie is ComptonWave*c/v. So yes when v=0 the de Broglie gives infinite wavelength, (which leads to nonsense interpretation if one not understand this is just a mathematical derivative of the physical wavelength: Compton).
Building a QM around the de Broglie wave gives correct prediction (except at the Planck scale), but it is a unnecessarily complex way to do it. One goes through a derivative that one falsely think represent something real. Much simpler is (in particular interpretation wise as logic again is restored, and all the esoteric magical interpretations then disappear) when one built theory from the real observed matter wave, Compton. In my model it is not even a wave, it is just the average distance between the indivisibles in the matter type we are working with, but yes all the wave math works on this.
2. Modern physicists ignored Newton. Newton was clear on matter where indivisible particles. And his gravity formula F=Mm/r^2 is consistent with this mass view. Newton NEVER EVER mention a gravity constant, nor dose he use one. He predicts correctly the relative masses of planets, their orbital velocity etc. His model simply did not took into account relativistic effects for fast moving objects. Modern physics had to redefine Newton to F=GMm/r^2 (in the 1800). Because their incomplete mass definition they had to get in a magic gravity constant G that they do not really know what represent, only empirical calibrate without understanding what it is. Well it contains embedded the Planck length, the speed of light, and the Planck constant. This to get the Planck constant out from their incomplete (antiNewtonian) mass definition, and get the Planck length in. If they had understood this they would have understood Gravity is the Planck scale they have been searching for but not found. It has been just ahead of their nose all the time.





EGH


Total Posts: 82 
Joined: Nov 2014 


Spavieri, Gilles, Haug and Sanchez Light propagation and local speed in the linear Sagnac effect Journal of Modern Optics, fresh from the press!
"We show that, if standard clock synchronization is adopted, the speed c turns out to be invariant in an open section of the contour only. Our result is due to the distinctive physical feature of the ‘time gap’ introduced by relative simultaneity in the closed contour."
"many interpretations of the Sagnac effect are missing this crucial point: the fact that different synchronizations provide the same roundtrip result in the Sagnac effect, does not tell or reveal what the local speed of light is in every section of the light path." 



EGH


Total Posts: 82 
Joined: Nov 2014 

 

pj


Total Posts: 3522 
Joined: Jun 2004 


Sigh, The fact that the relativity theory and quantum mechanics are not compatible is not new.
I urge you to google it. 
The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 


EGH


Total Posts: 82 
Joined: Nov 2014 


PJ seems you mix up quanta in energy, linked to the Planck constant, with a quanta in length (minimum length) that my paper is about!
quantum mechanics have a quanta of energy, which is linked to the Planck constant (h), not the Planck length, even if there is a very weak link. Max Planck uses the Planck constant together with the speed of the light and the gravitational constant to derive the Planck length. But the Planck constant actually contains zero information about the Planck length, it is in no way needed to find the Planck length.
It is in no way clear how consistent QM is with a minimum length, actually it is not! Something that will become more and more clear. It is inconsistent!
It is also not clear if QM is consistent Minkowski spacetime, see article W. G. Unruh. Chapter: Minkowski SpaceTime and Quantum Mechanics, in the bool Minkowski Spacetime: A Hundred Years Later, Edited by V. Petkov. Springer, 2009. My paper linked here is not about SR being inconsistent with QM or not, again it is about SR being inconsistent with a minimum length. (not topic here, but Minkowski Spacetime actually simplifies at the Planck scale, read my two collision space time papers)
Quantum mechanics is only to some degree consistent with energy coming in quanta, linked to the Planck constant h. Standard quantum mechanics is in no way consistent with a minimum length, not even a minimum Compton length. Actually indirectly from my papers you can already see why, but I am going to write a paper specifically pointing out several inconsistencies in standard QM here.
to get a unified theory one cannot have a quanta in energy and at the same time have no minimum spatial dimension (modern physics have point particles). Scientist working on quantum gravity I think know this, but have not been able to solve it.
So if you had read my paper and understood QM better, you would have seen my paper is not about SR not being consistent with QM, it is about SR not being consistent with a minimum length, quanta in minimum length.
Part of the solution to the problem is the formula I first presented at the Royal Institution in London 2015 (mentioned in the paper), that I back then did not understand the great importance of. As I back then had not been able to figure out the diameter of the indivisible particle, the Newton Particle. But later I have proven it must be the Planck length.
PJ, where is the Planck length in standard QM ??? Please give me specific references. Yes in some extended attempts on QM we have it, but these extensions have not solved it. So the paper I have posted here is not even about SR being compatible with QM or not, it is about SR being incompatible with a minimum length.
SR, GR, and QM are all inconsistent with minimum length. Part of the reason they have all kind of bogus interpretations of certain aspects of things. To have a quanta of energy without a minimum quanta of length is actually part of the big flaw in modern physics. quantum gravity try to solve this.
My maximum velocity formula with its extreme simplicity is part of the solution. it removes a series of infinity challenges in modern physics and give us a minimum spatial dimension. I will write more papers on this, as also standard QM cannot be made consistent with a minimum length, it is incomplete, and why they not can unify it with gravity. This mostly only affect the Planck scale (nothing to do with the Planck constant, but with the natural units of Planck), which again IS GRAVITY!
(good one: The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom Henry L. Mencken) 




pj


Total Posts: 3522 
Joined: Jun 2004 


>EGH post My apologies. The problem is a a tad deeper than I thought when skimming your paper. But I still fail to comprehend the contributions of your opus. You need to sell harder (scratch that) smarter.
Une recommendation pour des francophones
BTW, my handle is lowercase pj .

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 


EGH


Total Posts: 82 
Joined: Nov 2014 


Doubly special relativity that you link too is indeed an attempt to modify special relativity to get consistent with the Planck length and thereby the Planck scale, however it seems to be the wrong approach. From what I understand it still keeps the speed limit for mass as same as SR: v just being smaller than c. It is a topdow speculative way, mostly mathematical to try to get modified SR consistent with the Planck scale, but it is a failed attempt in my view.
While I simply derive my theory bottom up from atomism. And here I in 2014 found there is an exact maximum velocity of anything with rest mass directly linked to a minimum length, that I presented at the Royal Institution in 2015 in London. Back then I was not even close to show this minimum length (the dimeter of the Newton particle) can be shown by simple experiments that it must be the Planck length. I thought in 2014/2015 it possibly could be a connection, but I did not know how then. But now I know, and in this way we get in the Planck scale incorporated in relativity. And there is no longer need to search for the Planck scale, it is clearly gravity, as shown in my collision spacetime working papers (one of them in for review)
Doubly special relativity seems to have had very limited success. And I think I can understand why:
 They still assume for masses v less than c, while it should be Doubly special relativity also do not understand it is the Compton wavelength in matter that is essential.  They do not understand what Newton's gravitational constant is, except they "know" it is a universal constant. And yes it is universal constant, but it is a universal Composite constant, , and this is very essencial to understand. We can do fully without G and hbar, but we can not do without the Planck length, and the Planck length can be found totally independent of G and hbar.
secondary: they use an incomplete mass definition, the one used by standard physics, that lack the Planck length component. This is secondary they trick it back in (without knowing about that is what they are doing, because they do not know G is a composite) when they multiply G with standard mass defintion.
Actually Newton never invented G, nor did he use it, nor did he need to use it, nor is G consistent with Newtons mass view that he explicitly claimed declare is the philosophy behind all his theory = indivisibles!! ), third So yes Doubly special relativity is a top down mathematical theory that in my view not can succeed. G is needed to trick the Planck scale back into the modern incomplete mass definition, without doing so they could do no gravity predictions. But of course simpler and much more intuitive is to use the correct mass defintion in the first place.
There is much much simpler way to modify relativity to get it consistent with minimum length, and it is it to derive it bottom up from atomism (the particles Democritus, Newton). Then one also get quantum gravity!
>BTW, my handle is lowercase pj .
Thank you for this important correction, I will not do this important mistake again!





EGH


Total Posts: 82 
Joined: Nov 2014 

 

EGH


Total Posts: 82 
Joined: Nov 2014 

 

EGH


Total Posts: 82 
Joined: Nov 2014 

 

pj


Total Posts: 3522 
Joined: Jun 2004 


Haven't I seen it before?

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 



EGH


Total Posts: 82 
Joined: Nov 2014 


possibly, but this version is dated 2021, so that you have read papers published in the future is quite normal in these corona times, this virus has the strangest effect on peoples conception of time ! 



nikol


Total Posts: 1126 
Joined: Jun 2005 


Looks like gravity has broken causality already. Are we living inside black hole? 




EGH


Total Posts: 82 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"Are we living inside black hole?"
No! But we are built from micro "blackholes", except blockholes are not holes, they are simply collisions between indivisible particles, at least this gives basically the same math, with escape velocity c etc. See my collision spacetime paper. 



nikol


Total Posts: 1126 
Joined: Jun 2005 


Did not read it. yet.
Major test for good theory: it should explain all current experiments and predict something what others can't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KmimDq4cSU 




EGH


Total Posts: 82 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"Major test for good theory: it should explain all current experiments and predict something what others can't."
This I think actually could be a flawed requirement. Assume you have two theories"
Theory A) Assume this is the established theory. It can explain or at least is consistent with experiment A to T.
Theory B) A new theory. It can explain or at least is consistent with experiment A to T. It can not explain or predict anything new.
But theory B is much simpler than A. For example in theory B predictions consistent with A to T can all be derived from a couple of initial postulates. While theory A is highly complex and the initial postulates where not enough to be consistent with A to T, but one had over time added new models to explain them. And one can not even get the different models in this theory (theories) to fit together in one model.
The idea that a new theory also must explain something new to be better or preferred seems to be highly flawed. It only have to be able to describe the same phenomena as the established model in a simpler and or more logical way. The criteria for this can be discussed, and happy to discuss it. There are some quite objective criteria one can look at here, and others more subjective criteria.
Among more subjective criteria: For example the most compact mathematical model is not necessarily the simplest. If this more compact mathematical model need inventions of series of things that seems to go totally against logical reasoning then possibly a more complex mathematical model that seems to be consistent with logical reasoning could be preferable. I am using the word "logic" here based on the original meaning I think it had in ancient Greek (whatever that is, educate me ;) These arguments will often lead to long philosophical discussions with little math.
More objective criteria is for example if model B in several of the phenomena A to T requires less input than model A to predict and describe them. This I think is a quit objective criteria that I would say strongly points in models B favor.
Naturally the existing theory has a big advantage of already being well studied by specialists in the filed. What you have spent 20 years on often feels much simpler than suddenly a new concept (even if simpler).
But yes there are interestingly some objective arguments one can use to distinguish two theories that can explaining the same and still say which one is simplest to explain this. I am very happy to hear arguments on how to objectively distinguish between two models that describe the same phenomena, how to decide which one is preferable ? Yes there is a whole science around this, but for mortal fools like me I am happy to hear a summary.
I have already started drafting a paper on exactly this a few months ago, happy for input, will likely first be finished end of summer.
The Feynman youtube good....too bad he did not understood quantum mechanics ;) “I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics,” R. Feynman
well how can anyone understand QM before someone stumble over a unification of QM and gravity!! 



pj


Total Posts: 3522 
Joined: Jun 2004 


Permit me to quote Leibniz "Let us calculate."
Can your theory calculate from the start, say, perihelion precession of Mercury? Or GPS correction?

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 



deeds


Total Posts: 478 
Joined: Dec 2008 


@EGH  in addition to beauty and truth (key personal motivators) seems a key value of a new theory that is simpler is that it could inspire new things to predict as well as later be used to predict new things, so seem to be on same page with pj, there...not sure why we'd harry the goose to try to get golden eggs sooner
theory as finished product may be different than theory as tool  have met working mathematicians who would prefer a less simple but richer theory than the simplest perhaps less intuitive, in their hands, wrt to their current work...




EGH


Total Posts: 82 
Joined: Nov 2014 


Can your theory calculate from the start, say, "perihelion precession of Mercury?"
looks like, as my theory naturally means all masses must be relativistic if they are moving, this is actually in line even with SR, but with an upper limit on the relativistic mass in addtion. An electron can not get a insane relativistic mass equal to the rest mas of the Milky way or even of the assumed restmass of the observable universe, which is actually fully allowed in standard theory.
I spend some time in library some years ago on perihelion precession of Mercury. In particular I investigated why it was assumed Newton did not fit perihelion precession of Mercury. It dose not, but then Newton do not take into account any relativistic effects. But of course this must have been investigated? To my own surprise after spending days in a very good library with access to most journals in physics it was clear to me that this had been attempted and looked into around 1986 but Bagge and Phillips (in several published papers).
They assumed only one mass was relativistic. But when one observe mercury moving around the Sun from the Earth then the Sun and Mercury are both moving relative to the Earth. So both masses must be relativistic, and then when I derived from this it seems like I get the same prediction as GR for mercury precession
Relativistic Newtonian Gravitation That Gives the Correct Prediction of Mercury Precession and Needs Less Matter for Galaxy Rotation Observations (be aware the formulation can be simplified considerably further, this paper to sell this idea into physicsts that are religious about the Newton gravity constant G, that Newton never invented, nor used)
Then I have already been attacked because this is not Lorentz covariant, but this is by people that not have studied my main papers. I have shown all off gravity is break down of Lorentz symmetry and also a break down of Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
My theory also predicts correct galaxy rotations without having to relay on dark matter, I just submitted my draft on this to a journal. It predicts also supernovas with no need for dark matter.
This was not the point of my discussion below, my point was even if one had two theories predicting only the same even then one should be able to distinguish which theory is best.
Well off course the standard model also fit galaxy rotations, but first after inventing fantasy dark matter, and it fits supernovas after inventing fantasy dark energy.
"Or GPS correction?"
looks like, Sagnac is one of them, gravity time dilation yes, velocity time dilation yes, but it is more complicated the deeper one look at it, as clock synchronization etc plays central role. We have a paper in for review that indeed discusses GPS clocks. 




EGH


Total Posts: 82 
Joined: Nov 2014 


"Permit me to quote Leibniz "Let us calculate.""
yes have reached that stage now:
my theory seems to predict
1. Correct precession of Mercury, simply based on relativistic masses. Bagge and Phillips only had one of the masses relativistic and only got half way there, so this line of though was rejected prematurely instead of investigated further. Few in modern physics have even studied this line of thought. To observer Mercury rotation around Sun is clearly a 3 reference frame problem, not a 2 reference frame. So yes if done properly it predicts Mercury precession same as GR, should be checked by others, this is not necessary the full story. (even in just SR, when not working with gravity at all it is amazing how few physicists well studied on 3 reference frame problems, Einstein was the first to say something interesting here, very few papers on it, but some interesting books, read the books of Rindler for example).
2. Correct galaxy rotation without relaying on fantasy dark matter. I have tested against updated database with thousands of data points. Very good fit. Standard model without using its fudge factor (dark matter) is just totally off. (In for review, but could take years to get publish as I beat up the current theory, and who are the typical editors in journals interested in this, people that have built their career on the fudge factor: dark matter).
3. Correct for 1a supernovas without have to rely on fantasy dark energy. I have tested against updated database, close to perfect fit. Standard model without its second fudge factor (dark energy) is totally off.
4. High Z supernovas, observations shows no velocity time dilation. My theory predicts no velocity time dilation for these. Standard model is totally off, but have invented a third fudge factor idea to fuge their model onto the data. (horrible way to do science, invent fudge factors when models is off instead of questioning fundament of model).
5. Correct escape velocity at the Planck length for a Planck mass, standard model fudge also this, if not it would be above speed of light. (hard to check "directly")
6. + It unifies QM with gravity in a very simple way.
7. + It removes several inconsistencies, it simplify dramatically. For example why on earth should there be two types of waves related to matter, Compton waves and De Broglie waves? Well the de Broglie wave is just a derivative of the true matter "wave": Compton.
8. + This theory require less physical constants than standard theory, will write more on this to clearly prove it, it is already indirectly in my collision spacetime paper, but not a main point there.
Less constants, no dark matter crap, no dark energy crap, unification!!
and more... (but still unsolved issues, a unified theory is not necessary a theory of everything, it do not tell u how to build the best dish washer or how to brew the best beer!)
As promised: I Will Make Physics Great Again! This is the begging of it, not the end!




pj


Total Posts: 3522 
Joined: Jun 2004 


> given extensive calculations, this seems to lead to the same prediction as GR for Mercury precession,

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom
Henry L. Mencken 







