Why No Electrical Force?

First, a disclaimer: This may sound correct or obvious, but if so, it is because that is the way I write.  Nothing should be taken as either factual or as representing the opinions of educated physicists.

This is an elucidation on my crank ideas.

When I first began playing with these ideas, as a young teenager, I tried to account for quark behavior and gravity together by positing an additional type of polarized force.  The attempt failed, but it did teach me a few things, and as a slightly older teenager, I concluded the normal polarized force - electrical fields - wasn't necessary either; the same concepts I used to try to explain gravity using a new form of polarized force worked even better describing a polarized force in terms of gravity.  I hadn't heard of gravitomagnetics at the time, but I wouldn't have been surprised.

I think this is an issue normal physics is going to have to deal with, sooner or later, and I think too much framework has been built up around electrical fields to make the idea easily extractable from the ideas as a whole.  Quantum spin is tied tightly into electrical fields, and you have to have a complete conceptual framework in place before you can start to pull electrical fields out.

My framework isn't complete.  It might account for the behavior of a subset of the particles we observe, but I haven't really tried to incorporate neutrinos, or the wide variety of flavours of quark-based particles that aren't protons or neutrons (and neutrons aren't terribly well incorporated yet either) - mostly because I just don't have the inclination to try to figure out how neutrinos might fit into the system.  The framework, insofar as I have developed it, just doesn't have much to say about them yet.

Pretty much the only part of my framework I feel certain about is that the electrical field is an effect produced by electrons and their motion - that there is no fundamental force operating there.  You can get the same behaviors without a field - the field is extraneous.

The rest of the framework is built on top of that idea.  It may not be the simplest framework which can accommodate that consideration, but it is the one I have this far come up with, and it looks compatible with what information I have on particle behaviors.

There are experiments that might test this; I have considered them, and posted a couple.  And if anybody has performed such tests, I'm unaware of them - which wouldn't be surprising.

Lorentz Contraction

First, a disclaimer: This may sound correct or obvious, but if so, it is because that is the way I write.  Nothing should be taken as either factual or as representing the opinions of educated physicists.

This is another of my crank ideas, or rather, this is a potentially crank explanation intended to shed some light on why Lorentz Contraction happens.

So, in relativity, gravity is a distortion in spacetime; you can think of it as a change in the coordinate system such that, with respect to a "static" coordinate system, the points are closer together.  This is why orbits happen - because one side has to go through more coordinate-space than the other side, it is going "faster" relative to a third party observer, pulling the object to the side.

Now, information can't go faster than light - which means that changes in gravity can't go faster than light, either.  So you get a sort of spacetime compression wave building up in front of an object (relative to other objects - from the object's perspective, the space it occupies is undistorted, it is everything else that is distorting).  As an object continues to increase relative speed, this compression wave of its own coordinate space means it is occupying, relative to a static coordinate system and in the direction of its motion, less and less space.  From its own perspective, it is still occupying the same area - but a third-party observer would see the object contracting, because, from the perspective of their coordinate-space, which isn't compressed, it is.

I write this because most explanations revolve around light traveling from different points on the relativistic object, which confuses the issue when you try to consider the standard example of a ladder fitting into a barn for a moment of time.

Event Horizon and the Information Paradox

First, a disclaimer: This may sound correct or obvious, but if so, it is because that is the way I write.  Nothing should be taken as either factual or as representing the opinions of educated physicists.

This is another of my crank ideas.

So, the information paradox is the idea that black holes violate the conservation of information - information, particularly entropic information, is annilihation when matter enters into a black hole.

One solution for this is position that there is a shell of photons on the edge of the event horizon, forming a two dimensional shell storing all the entropic information.  The problem I see with this solution is that any change to the position or mass of the black hole would annilihate part or all of this information.

A simpler solution is to assume the information is ejected as a gravitational wave, whose exact shape and parameters reflect the incoming mass.

Relativistic Entities

First, a disclaimer: This may sound correct or obvious, but if so, it is because that is the way I write.  Nothing should be taken as either factual or as representing the opinions of educated physicists.

This is the fifth of my crank ideas.

So, a previousbit of nonsense was about how relativistic objects might not be viable at long ranges.  This bit of nonsense is about how they might be.

There is an idea that antimatter has negative mass - which, to take one relevant piece of information out of this, implies that it emits antigravity.  (It still falls down, not up.  Gravity is a distortion in space, not a force, as we usually think of forces.  Instead, objects fall away from antimatter at gravitationally relevant distances.)

This implies an interesting possibility: A braided material of matter and antimatter might be able to cancel out the gravitational wave, meaning it may be possible to build a relativistic missile this way.  It wouldn't be terribly effective as a relativistic missile, however, as it wouldn't have much energy - if antimatter has negative inertial mass, the total inertial energy would be close to nil.

(It would still be a fast-moving antimatter bomb, granted.)

This particular technique wouldn't work for interstellar travel, however - at close range the gravitational turbulence would probably rip just about anything apart.  (Maybe even the braided material itself.)

If all of this is accurate, such a braided material would have some strange properties; because it has zero inertial mass, the slightest bit of unbalanced kinetic energy would send it zipping away at relativistic speeds.  When it collides with something, even a hydrogen atom floating in space, it would come to an abrupt stop.

Oh, and depending on the configuration of the braided material, it might move on its own without any external energy, because if that model of antimatter is correct, antimatter chases matter - pulled in by matter's gravity, while matter is pushed away by antimatter's gravity.

Scalar Symmetry

First, a disclaimer: This may sound correct or obvious, but if so, it is because that is the way I write.  Nothing should be taken as either factual or as representing the opinions of educated physicists.

This is the fourth of my crank ideas.

So, last post, I implied that I don't think quantum physics is correct.  This means that pieces of energy can come in any size - there is no minimum quanta of energy.

This is actually the conclusion that led me to find Rydberg's hypothesis - I went looking for it.  Because of the following observation, which led me to conclude quantum physics cannot be true:

The speed of light is a scale-symmetric limit.

Yes, those words mean nothing.  Explaining, imagine the universe was shrunk down to a millionth its current size, completely, from the size of atoms to the distance between quarks to the size of galaxies - everything is the same, but smaller (including force parameters).  That is, change everything except the speed of light; keep it exactly the value it is now.

And absolutely nothing changes.

Oh, sure, light crosses the universe in one-one millionth of the time - but it would look exactly the same speed, relative to us, as it does now to a human observer.  Our seconds would be proportionally smaller as well, you see, because shrinking everything speeds everything up; there is less distance to cross for any given motion, so motions are completed faster.

The universe would be a million times smaller, but our brains would be a million times faster, so the speed of light would not, from a human perspective, be any different.

The speed of light is scale-independent.  This is, bluntly, a really fucking weird property for a universal constant to have in a universe where there is a minimum scale.

So I discarded the idea there is a minimum scale, and adopted a position of scalar symmetry: As above, so below.  Thus, my proposal for a theory of everything.  But I think the observation holds even if the proposal doesn't.

A Revision to the Proposal for a Theory of Everything

First, a disclaimer: This may sound correct or obvious, but if so, it is because that is the way I write.  Nothing should be taken as either factual or as representing the opinions of educated physicists.

On further consideration, electrons may not, strictly speaking, be white holes.  Mass might stabilize before a repulsive singularity is achieved; assuming the electron does form an Einstein-Rosen bridge, the topology might be such that, once the event horizon reaches a point of neutrality - that is, the event horizon is exactly far enough away from the singularity that it reaches a point where attractive and repulsive forces balance - that the Einstein-Rosen bridge stabilizes and any matter or energy which would fall into the electron instead interact with the topology of the bridge itself instead.

Maybe.  My thought experiments don't work very well here.  I am still vacillating between electrons as matter or electrons as antimatter; depending on the assumptions made, either could work.  One thing that should start to become apparent is that I don't fully grasp the implications of my model; for example, the origin of this post is noticing that, while all singularities are necessarily attractive (meaning matter and antimatter singularities must occur at different scales), and thus the wave-of-light-leaving-a-black-hole is a good approximation of the basic idea - if electrons are white holes, that would imply an entirely different structure to the waveform.

Maybe.

But I am pretty sure my model works if electrons have the waveform as I previously considered it.  I don't know what the modified waveform would look like - it might work, I just don't know - and I can probably get the Einstein-Rosen bridges without white holes, so I am going to drop this in the "I haven't figured this out yet" bucket, and revise the model so it still makes sense to me, pending further thought.

Rydberg Mechanics

First, a disclaimer: This may sound correct or obvious, but if so, it is because that is the way I write.  Nothing should be taken as either factual or as representing the opinions of educated physicists.

This is the third of my crank ideas - technically in this case it isn't my idea, and the idea itself wasn't a crank idea, but rather the crank comes in because I insist on thinking a hundred year old discarded idea is probably true.  This will be the crankmost yet.

So in the early part of the 20th century, a physicists, like many physicists, was working on solving the fundamental problem for which quantum physics was the solution: Why elements emit specific wavelengths of light, instead of all wavelengths of light.

The name of this particular physicist is Johannes Rydberg, and we still use his equations for light emission today.

His theory, as I understand it, was that we got specific wavelengths of light because those wavelengths were the resonant frequencies of electrons in a given atomic configuration.  He spent a lot of time on this, and managed to calculate out that this model worked for hydrogen.  Then quantum physics came out, solved the problem, and he abandoned this hypothesis.

I think he abandoned it too quickly, or perhaps the idea came too early - lacking modern computers, the task was quite tedious and very manual.  I suspect Rydberg was correct - and that by extension, quantum physics, or at least the portion that says energy is strictly quantized, probably isn't.  This is not to say it isn't an accurate map of reality - it clearly is, it has worked extremely well for the past century.  But rather, it is to say that I believe it is a less accurate map of reality than Rydberg's.

Theory of Everything Experiment

First, a disclaimer: This may sound correct or obvious, but if so, it is because that is the way I write.  Nothing should be taken as either factual or as representing the opinions of educated physicists.

There should be a relatively simple experiment, at least in theory, to verify part of the proposed theory of everything; namely, that pressure of hydrogen ions h(0), removed from significant sources of electrons, should be lower than would be expected given the presence of protons and hence a positively charged electric field.  Namely, as the temperature approaches absolute zero, and the density is appropriately low, pressure should also approach zero - if there aren't any electrons nearby.

This is a surprisingly difficult experiment to do.  Electrons are everywhere.

Likewise, any positively charged body, in the absence of electrons, shouldn't exhibit the behavior that would be expected.

To explain what I think would be going on in these experiments, electron probability paths - probable orbits - exert a kind of pressure on the structures around them, pulling them in by virtue of the principle of least action - they could release a bit of their energy if the structures were closer and their orbits were less expensive, so, in the way of probability collapse, they release a bit of that energy, meaning energy has to be added back to the system to keep things in balance.

In a balanced electrical field, this pressure is balanced in all directions.  If you have two positively charged structures, the electron pressure is uneven.  This produces an apparent repulsive force.

And because we can't actually block electrons - at best we can put other electrons in their way, which just moves the problem - we can't get away from this problem.

I imagine you might be able to test this in a sufficiently large vacuum, but the dielectric potential of a vacuum means it would have to be a very large vacuum.

Or if we could find a nebula of ionized, particularly H(0), hydrogen - H(0) is, functionally, a cloud of protons.  The electric field should be stronger than gravity at all distances, so such a nebula shouldn't exist.  Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, the closest thing we have are temporary clouds of H(0) caused by ionizing radiation, heavily mixed with electrons.

Gravitational Bleed

First, a disclaimer: This may sound correct or obvious, but if so, it is because that is the way I write.  Nothing should be taken as either factual or as representing the opinions of educated physicists.

This is the second of my crank ideas.

A recurring concept within science fiction is the idea of a relativistic missile - an object moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light, and thus carrying absurd amounts of energy along for the ride.

My suggestion here is that relativistic objects may not be very long-range, that the energy would bleed off into a gravitational wave.  That is, there is something like friction even in space, but instead of losing energy to particles in the immediate vicinity, mass loses energy to the universe as a whole - and unlike with, say, electromagnetic resistance, you don't actually need to have nearby particles for this to take place.  (The energy lost would be completely absorbed by other particles in the universe, owing to the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory, if I understand it correctly)

If correct, this may also have severe negative ramifications for interstellar travel.

A Proposal for a Theory of Everything

First, a disclaimer: This may sound correct or obvious, but if so, it is because that is the way I write.  Nothing should be taken as either factual or as representing the opinions of educated physicists.

This is the first of my crackpot ideas.

This proposal is written by a layman, so expect some irregular use of words; there are some interlocking pieces that don't stand on their own, but I believe the whole of it approximates reality.

Core Proposal

The basic proposal is that G is not a constant, and looks something like c1*sin(c2/r^2) (in a Newtonian sense - the mathematics of putting this in tensor form in the general theory of relativity is beyond me) - that is, gravity as we know it is one component of a sinuisodal distortion in spacetime, that looks something like the way a wave of infinitesimal frequency leaving a singularity would.  The cosmological constant is a repulsive force, and the fact that dark energy has the same distribution of matter isn't an accident - it's a repulsive segment of the same waveform.  We may have an additional attractive-repulsive cycle between the cosmological constant and the scale of solar systems - it would explain some characteristics of matter distribution around our own solar system - but for the purposes of the proposal we won't spend much more time on that, and move down the scale.

Next we have gravity.  With the modified shape of gravity - and possibly with the assistance of an additional attractive-repulsive cycle - I suspect we no longer need dark matter.

Now, below gravity, we would normally have an electric field - this proposal discards an electric field, and proposed instead a non-polarized repulsive force.  Gravitomagnetism effects account for some of the properties we observe as an electric field; others are explained differently.  We'll get to that in a bit.

Below the electric field analogue, we have another attractive field - the strong nuclear force.  This binds the nucleus together.  Below that, we have a repulsive field - again, standing in for electric fields, this time holding protons and neutrons apart.

Below this secondary repulsive field, we have yet another attractive force, holding protons together.  Below this, six fields - which, for reasons we'll get to in a moment, are very close together, in scalar terms.  This is the level of quarks and leptons.  Further below this, we have another attractive force, which holds gluons together.  The forces continue down, but it is no longer useful to talk about them.

The Hierarchy Problem

Now, the scalar relationships of this sequence of fields don't hold constant - there is a potential explanation for this.  Each iteration of fields is relativistic - each changes the shape of space and time.  The iterated effect of this is that there is something like a sinuisodal variation in the scale of the fields themselves - the relationship doesn't hold constant, it contracts and expands as you move through the fields.  This is why there is a hierarchy problem - and why the fields on the scale of quarks are so close together.  The level below the six fields making up quarks represents a relative expansion of the scale relationships, and the level below that is further away still.

White Holes

This produces an interesting dynamic which helps to explain why particles have such a consistent mass; there is only a very narrow band of mass possible.  Within the context of an attractive field, which is sufficiently removed from the repulsive field on the scale beneath it, singularities become possible; once the event horizon of such a singularity reaches a sufficient size, the singularity becomes a white hole - a repulsive event horizon, encapsulating a black hole.  This is the basic building block of higher-level matter, and it is of an approximately uniform mass.

Electric Fields

Now, to replace electric fields, we need antimatter - gravitomagnetism can only get us a third of the way to eliminating electric fields.  Antimatter is assumed to have a reversed polarity unified force; that is, where matter attracts, antimatter repels, and vice.  This enables us to derive the correct behavior for magnetism, which in the context of gravity, would otherwise behave in exactly the wrong way, for example causing parallel currents to attract rather than repel.  Another third is handled by the principle of least action - the attraction and repulsion of magnets can be explained, without electric fields, by referring to possible electron orbits, and what produces the least expensive orbit.  Finally, the behavior of point masses - protons in an electric field - can be explained by the transfer of angular momentum.  This is one of the interlocking bits, because this directly contradicts quantized electron spin, so we will return to that shortly.  We can treat an electric field as electron orbit, or motion, probabilities; an electron moving past a proton, in sufficiently short range, will transfer angular momentum via the force differentials, in a process much like orbital locking; because electrons are moving in possible paths on all sides of a proton, the rotation cancels out into linear velocity.  However, this probably requires electrons to be antimatter, because the angular momentum transferred would otherwise cause the proton to move in the same direction as electrons; instead, with antimatter electrons, we can transfer negative angular momentum, and produce a paradoxical acceleration in the opposite direction.

Quantum Spin

Of course, now we have the issue that angular spin of electrons is quantized, so none of that works - except, once we remove electric fields, the evidence supporting that conclusion no longer makes sense.  The Stern-Gerlach experiment depends on the classic definition of an electric field to demonstrate angular spin.  So, in the context of a system in which electric fields are an effect, rather than a cause, the experiment suggests something different; given that electrons are going to be pushed in one direction, and protons in the opposite, the Gerlach-Stern experiment instead suggests that quantum spin may be information about the relative orientation of the electron; if the electron is in front of the atom relative to its motion, it gets pushed one direction, and if it is behind, it gets pushed in the other.  Uncertainty limits the extent to which the position of the electron can be identified, so we get one bit of information: In front, or behind.  If the atoms clustered in any different pattern, it would give us too much information about the position of the electron.  Likewise, running Gerlach-Stern apparati in serial would give too much information about the position, if the information about the position of the electron doesn't get scrambled first.

Energy Quantization

This model may appear to reject energy quantization, but energy quantization does arise in the context of uncertainty.  Specifically, it requires that probability waveform collapse be tied to the release of energy.  This isn't a change; the principle of least action implies this to be the case.  Which is to say, when one possible outcome releases energy, there is no additional energy to be released; the waveform collapses because none of the other possibilities have energy to express themselves, it is already consumed.  The system suggests energy can be quantized at multiple scales; it is a phenomenon that will be observed multiple times.

Leptons

Electrons are the smallest of the leptons, and are considered as antimatter white holes.  This produces uncertainty in two forms; first, because locality forbids information from escaping a singularity, we aren't allowed to know the position of one.  Second, because white holes may form stable Einstein-Rosen bridges, electrons may react to light that doesn't arrive in our universe, such as in the quantum bomb detection experiment.  Electrons are white holes originating at the smallest scale in the six fields comprising the quark scale; the other two leptons are unstable because the internal forces resulting from the interaction of their participating mass on the field or fields below them tear them apart.  Matter leptons, such as positrons, are probably unstable, but I am uncertain of this.

Photons

This model assumes light is a form of gravitational wave, of a wavelength appropriate to electron resonant frequency, as suggested by Johannes Rydeberg.  All bosons, in the context of this model, are gravitational waves, of a wavelength appropriate to their originating mass, and their specific properties vary according to the mass from which they originate.  These waveforms collapse into apparent photons by the same process by which energy is quantized - energy emission consumes all of the energy of the probability cloud.  Because electrons have no specific position, the apparent photon behavior is just an emergent phenomena.

Quarks

Quark behavior is modeled as the interaction of six fields; the three intersections of attractive-repulsive model the three "flavours" observed in quarks.  Because the fields involved are so close in terms of scale, they have a tendency towards instability, and require a larger collection of mass to stabilize.  Protons are one such stable configuration.  Neutrons are a less-stable configuration in this model, only stable in the context of other mass.  Because the fields involved are so close in terms of scale, however, protons are extremely resistant to destruction; if you were to try to pull a proton apart, the interlocking fields would produce an extremely strong chain of gluons, which would get harder to pull as it was stretched.  This is consistent with observed behavior.

Matter Creation

Modeling the translation of energy into matter in this model is fairly simple; a sufficiently high-amplitude, high-frequency region of light would coalesce into either an electron or a positron, as the energy density created a singularity.  Whether matter or antimatter would depend entirely on whether the amplitude was "positive" or "negative" at the specific point.