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.