Sentences like this are silly: "His theory states that the known universe is only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space, projected into 3 dimensions."
No, the Universe has 3 spatial dimensions and one for time. If you take spacetime seriously, writing software to animate equations in 3D space + time, then you can get visual insights into physics that make sense.
Take EM. It has a symmetry called U(1), but non-technical people can understand it as a circle (in the complex plane for the technical folks). If you have an electrical charge, then you have a circle in a complex plane so you have the symmetry U(1), visualphysics.org/forums Why is electric charge quantized? Because you can count circles.
Hello:
I just launched the web site http://visualphysics.org/ last week. See if they can download the software, install it, and make animations of physics problems. The number of animations are countable. Anything with 3 spacial dimensions and time can be animated, no exceptions.
The Schwarzschild solution assumes the source is static, spherically symmetric, non-rotating, and uncharged. There are other solutions that have rotation and electric charge. A small volume of spacetime with an enormous amount of mass is not going to be static, as in not changing in time. The Einstein field equations are too tough to solve exactly for a metric changing in both time and space, so people try to approximate a solution. Most people who work on black hole physics don't even do that much, sticking with Schwarzschild to see what that manifestly innappropriate metric implies.
Yes, there are small places with LOTS of mass, but no, we don't describe the math correctly at this time.
Been working on my own unified field theory in the basement. It is a variation on the Maxwell equations, the ones that are cow-roped to quantum mechanics unlike GR which doesn't play the game. The trick is to write the Maxwell action using quaternions, then swap in hypercomplex numbers for the quaternions (use wikipedia, those are real math terms).
To make the hypercomplex numbers a division algebra, that can be done by removing zero and all Eigenvalues of their matrix representation. That has consequences for quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics one looks for what all the Eigenvalues of a particular equation can be - those are the only values that can be observed. The calculation one does is to determine the odds of being at each particular value.
In my work with hypercomplex numbers, the system cannot ever be at its Eigenvalue. I have no idea how it is going to pan out, but it will not be like the other three known forces of Nature.
My work unifying gravity with the three other forces of Nature suggests that if done right, we get new math to describe how gravity works. All three problems will politely disappear in a few calculations on paper.
Here are 4 things that work great for real and complex numbers: a robust derivative, commuting, visualization, and many connections to group theory. If we can these 4 in 4D, then the major problems in physics will be resolved.
Tensors are not enough. They have addition and its inverse subtraction, but not multiplication and its inverse division. Only 4D tensors could come with division by being isomorphic with quaternions. This would eliminate ALL work on strings.
No one can visualize 4 spatial dimensions. We can watch 3D animations. I have written the software to do so (quaternions.sf.net). Move from Descartes static analytic geometry to dynamic analytic animations. Weird and wonderful things happen with math in motion.
Feel free to email me with questions. Lots of YouTube videos available.
Doug Sweetser
sweetser@alum.mit.edu
Scaling by a factor of 3 does not change the issue. Now we have some quarks that are -1M, while others happen to be +2M of that, and these particles happen to like to combine to be some number such that mod 3 = 0. I would appreciate a reason why this is the way Nature has to be. Why can't there be a +1M or a -2M? We have the observation that there are no such quarks.
All my research money is on the math, how to do spacetime calculus correctly in 4D. Odd factors of a third and 2/3 show up when I looked into analytic quaternion functions, but I too have no explanation at this time for the factors, just a hunch.
Like why-the-donkey-kong does charge come in factors of 1/3 and 2/3's? Why is the standard model composed of the symmetries U(1), SU(2), and SU(3) instead of some different combo meal of groups? It takes amazing data mining skills to spot an Omega-sub-b, but it does not address any big issues.
I know why nature uses U(1), SU(2), and SU(3) and Diff(M) for gravity, but I am not telling.
I am a fringe physicist, which I define precisely as someone without an advanced degree in physic yet tries to make a contribution. I know that the majority of people with my background produce (how do we say this politely?) muddled duck dung. Our talks get slotted into the 8am slot at APS meetings, or put on the last day of a long meeting. Such is our station in research.
The only other folks in the audience are other people giving presentations. Important people are too busy.
My interest is to find out where I am wrong. If I can establish this, then instead of spending $900 to go to an APS meeting or $3k to go to an international meeting, that money can go into a 60" flat screen fund.
With YouTube, my talks are on line, http://youtube.com/my_playlists?p=E602756BE43B04E4 I'll be traveling to Brazil to see if I can find someone to puncture my balloon. If you are in Campinas Brazil next Thursday, then my talk is at 5:30 - the next to last day of ICCA 8. If not, I should be putting up the talk within a week.
Newton's law of gravity only has the constant G. It is a classical approach to gravity. This is good enough for working with rockets.
In the Minkowski metric of spactime, there are the constants G and c. This is a relativistic approach to gravity. This is good enough for rockets that carry atomic clocks.
A quantum theory needs to have G, c, and h in the metric. I have NO IDEA why people bother with the current approach to strong gravity where quantum mechanics matters, and thus will require a metric with G, c, and h (other than their job depends on publishing). We don't have such a metric, ergo we can say zip about extremely strong gravitational fields.
There was one Einstein, there will not be another, ever. Nor will there be another Newton, Maxwell, Bohr, Dirac, Feynman, Weinberg, or Hawking. Very accomplished folks, but all over the place with their personalities, like how they would be in a bar (a topless bar if it was Feynman).
I support the project, not the marketing of the project.
General Relativity rocks. It is elegant in its minimialism. All efforts to add a little extra have failed, usually by allowing a dipole gravity wave mode of emission which has been ruled out by binary pulsar data.
The only field theory that is manifestly better than GR is the Maxwell field equations. Every time we have added to it in the name of symmetry, the theory has done more. James did it himself by tacking on the Ampere current. Einstein looked to get rid of a duplicate law, and so special relativity was born. With the huge supply of new particles coming out of atom smashers, the gauge symmetry in EM (U(1)) was expanded to SU(2) for the weak force, and SU(3) for the strong.
None of those smart cats listed in the initial post will be talking about the Maxwell equations. Too bad, the history of physics is clear: expand Maxwell, you win.
Max depends on the field strength tensor d_u A_v - d_v A_u. There is a subtraction in there, a great thing (called an exterior derivative). But in the name of symmetry, we need to work with the rest of it, d_u A_v + d_v A_u. Do that right, and you get a unified field theory that Einstein failed to find by looking for workable extensions of GR. Extend Max, not GR.
If anyone here wants to see the nuts and bolts of deriving the Maxwell equations using the Euler-Lagrange equations, search for "GEM action" on YouTube. A small variation - two minus signs - on the Maxwell equations leads to equations for gravity. Yes, I show that there is a metric solution (the Rosen metric if you are up on your GR jargon, a bunch of exponentials if not). Yes I know there is an issue of spin 1 and spin 2 which can be addressed if you get what the phase of current coupling really is.
I am betting there will be no Higgs and no superpartners. When gravity is unified with EM as I have done, there will be no need for the Higgs boson, as mass itself does the job, thank you very much. Call my bluff, see my latest YouTube video with a nasty amount of math, deriving the good old Maxwell equations along with ones for gravity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9TUqUXGgpE
Or at least our current mathematical description of it is wrong. We cannot explain how disk galaxies spin. We cannot explain how the big bang happens without the magic fairy dust for inflation. Now we have a large wall of dark matter. Oh, and there is dark energy for galaxy acceleration. One more thing, we cannot quantize our approach to gravity.
These are the reasons I work on a rank 1 field theory for gravity. For the details, read as much of this thread as you like: http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=87097 This is a LONG thread, more than 36k views, I make learn things along the way. Right now I am trying to find derive the Maxwell equations, and then the unified field theory, instead of using tensors. Quite a bit of fun. I have never had to write so many partial differential equations in my life.
Newton kept absolute time separate from absolute space. Einstein allowed time to mix with space for inertial observers with special relativity. In 1915, he opened the door for time to mix with space in any situation using general relativity. Unfortunately, the math is too hard to apply.
I do all my physics with quaternions, a kind of 4D math designed to let time play with space. The smallest act of physics involves time and space playing together. To have time play with space quickly becomes confusing, but that is part of the fun. I have developed software to do this sort of thing using the command line at http://quaternions.sourceforge.net/
In a unified field theory, mass breaks the gauge symmetry EM, so no Higgs mechanism is needed. Doug
The issue is not his films, but this video. To quote the site:
"When you're a Scientologist, and you drive by an accident, you know you have to do something about it, because you know you're the only one who can really help... We are the way to happiness. We can bring peace and unite cultures."
Smells like teen crap to me. I also did some reading about their beliefs, and it is gibberish.
I hate lousy accounting. The fundamental coin of the Universe are events in spacetime. Talk about time separate from space, and garbage results. One needs to add, subtract, multiply, or divide events. The usual thing to do is to add. This is how we go forward in spacetime (mostly time, with a little bit of wandering in space to go from home to work to the grocery store and back).
There is no need for super symmetry either, a way of making spin 1/2 particles play nicely with spin 2 particles. Anyone who has watch diving at the summer olympics knows that one object can go around one axis at a different rate from another. It is easy enough to make a classical system where along one axis, it takes 2 pi to get around, and another axis 4 pi. I have the animations to prove it: http://picasaweb.google.com/dougsweetser/AnalyticAnimationsSpin12Spin1
Look at the simplest quaternion wave equation, and if you are good, you can pick out the Maxwell equations and an rank 1 approach to gravity.
Look at workable definition of a quaternion derivative (a 2 limit process, where first the 3-vector goes to zero, then the scalar, or the reverse), and there is a reason why change is different in classical physics versus quantum mechanics.
Understand from a group theory standpoint that (A/|A| exp(A-A*))* (B/|B| exp(B-B*)) = 1 has the three symmetries found in the Standard Model, and you understand why we have a standard model.
Have fun with quaternions, but don't quit the day job. If physics really is quaternion math done right, then there is no Higgs, our good friend GR is wrong in the way Newton's gravity theory is wrong (useful, but not ultimately spot on), string theory is flat wrong, there is no dark matter. That should cover most people with a job in physics today.
Silly Spaniards playing bogus number games. Quaternions are numbers, like the reals, but with 4 parts, a scalar one for time, and a 3-vector for 3D space. A scalar ain't never gonna be a vector. Ever. There is no finger pointing for scalars. This is why there is no arrow for time, never will be, but there is an arrow for spacetime, due to the space part of spacetime. If you look up "Standard Model" on YouTube, not arXiv, you can see they symmetries of EM, the weak force, the strong force, and gravity, U(1), SU(2), SU(3), and Diff(M) respectively. Those 4 symmetries are involved in the norm of two quaternions, where q* q' = 1. Play with the quaternion 4D wave equation, and you get competition for GR.
doug barking up a real 4D tree by himself instead of making dumb 11D claims
Read all about it on Bad Astronomy, http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/61876-gem-rank-1-unified-field-proposal.html. I know I should put it up on the physics archive, but they don't let fringe folks toss pdf's up there about a rank 1 field theory for gravity and light (yes, I figured out how the spin 2 graviton lives in the charge coupling term, if anyone here groks that issue). The test is to measure bending of light around the Sun, but six orders of magnitude better than needed to show Einstein was right, Newton was wrong. The GEM theory predicts 12% more bending, 0.8 microarcseconds, than the Schwarzschild metric. If we detect gravity waves, and measure them along 6 different axes, GR predicts the waves are transverse, and GEM predicts they would be longitudinal or scalar waves. Let the measurements decide!
> Finally, when the numbers have all been crunched, how do you visualize your hard-earned data?
The project over at quaternions.sf.net will take a collection of 4 numbers, one for time, three for space, sort them by time, and then in the appropriate frame of the animation, place the dot at the right x, y, z location. The result is a 10 second gif. I found that a 3D animation was hard to understand, so I surround the quaternion animation with three complex planes: tx, ty, and tz. I also have the superpositions on the right side.
If you have a few thousand sets of 4 numbers you want to see animated as a quaternion and in 3 complex planes, feel free to contact me.
Like a good/. nerd, I do have my own unified field theory which has several testable hypotheses. It is 4D, I've got the action, field equations, and exponential metric solution for a point source. A discussion of the idea happened here: http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/61876- gem-rank-1-unified-field-proposal.html One test is to measure bending of light to second order PPN accuracy, basically a million times more than was needed to tell the difference between GR and Newton. Do that for GR, and there should be 10.96 microarcseconds more bending. For my GEM proposal, it should be 11.69, a difference of 0.73 microarcseconds. We can only make measurements to 100 microarcseconds today, bummer.
GEM also predicts that gravity waves should be the scalar and longitudinal modes of emission, since the transverse modes of emission are light. Cannot wait for those gravity waves to be detected!
I am pretty sure gravity is not going to mess with the speed of light in my proposal, where the vacuum state is linear, in gravity as in EM. In the GEM action, gravity lives in a second rank symmetric field strength tensor, and EM lives in a second rank antisymmetric tensor. The separate housing arrangements make sense since one is a spin 2 field, the other spin 1.
I had been reading "Feynaman Lectures on Gravitation", chapter 3 about the polarization of photons today. I walked the dogs with the wife. She wanted to give them an extra long walk, and I turned back home, without the keys to the house. Oops.
No paper, no pencil. There were some wood chips, so I used them to write out a representation of equation 3.2.10 which concerns the circular polarization of light. I was able to write a few variations using the wood chips. When she came back, I took a picture. It turned out the variations were not enough. What I really needed to do was change the conjugate operator from j* to (i j i)*. Do that, and it looks like a spin 2 symmetry discussed on page 39. Use the j* for photons where like charges repel, and (i j i)* for gravitons where like charges attract. Nice.
Slashdot Mirror
Sentences like this are silly: "His theory states that the known universe is only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space, projected into 3 dimensions."
No, the Universe has 3 spatial dimensions and one for time. If you take spacetime seriously, writing software to animate equations in 3D space + time, then you can get visual insights into physics that make sense.
Take EM. It has a symmetry called U(1), but non-technical people can understand it as a circle (in the complex plane for the technical folks). If you have an electrical charge, then you have a circle in a complex plane so you have the symmetry U(1), visualphysics.org/forums Why is electric charge quantized? Because you can count circles.
Doug
http://VisualPhysics.org
Doug
Yes, there are small places with LOTS of mass, but no, we don't describe the math correctly at this time.
Been working on my own unified field theory in the basement. It is a variation on the Maxwell equations, the ones that are cow-roped to quantum mechanics unlike GR which doesn't play the game. The trick is to write the Maxwell action using quaternions, then swap in hypercomplex numbers for the quaternions (use wikipedia, those are real math terms).
To make the hypercomplex numbers a division algebra, that can be done by removing zero and all Eigenvalues of their matrix representation. That has consequences for quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics one looks for what all the Eigenvalues of a particular equation can be - those are the only values that can be observed. The calculation one does is to determine the odds of being at each particular value.
In my work with hypercomplex numbers, the system cannot ever be at its Eigenvalue. I have no idea how it is going to pan out, but it will not be like the other three known forces of Nature.
Doug
Is it possible to make videos to show on all this hardware? I also did not see anything about what OS was required. "Gaming" often implies PCs.
Dark energy
Dark matter
The Higgs boson
My work unifying gravity with the three other forces of Nature suggests that if done right, we get new math to describe how gravity works. All three problems will politely disappear in a few calculations on paper.
Here are 4 things that work great for real and complex numbers: a robust derivative, commuting, visualization, and many connections to group theory. If we can these 4 in 4D, then the major problems in physics will be resolved.
Tensors are not enough. They have addition and its inverse subtraction, but not multiplication and its inverse division. Only 4D tensors could come with division by being isomorphic with quaternions. This would eliminate ALL work on strings.
No one can visualize 4 spatial dimensions. We can watch 3D animations. I have written the software to do so (quaternions.sf.net). Move from Descartes static analytic geometry to dynamic analytic animations. Weird and wonderful things happen with math in motion.
Feel free to email me with questions. Lots of YouTube videos available.
Doug Sweetser
sweetser@alum.mit.edu
All my research money is on the math, how to do spacetime calculus correctly in 4D. Odd factors of a third and 2/3 show up when I looked into analytic quaternion functions, but I too have no explanation at this time for the factors, just a hunch.
Like why-the-donkey-kong does charge come in factors of 1/3 and 2/3's? Why is the standard model composed of the symmetries U(1), SU(2), and SU(3) instead of some different combo meal of groups? It takes amazing data mining skills to spot an Omega-sub-b, but it does not address any big issues. I know why nature uses U(1), SU(2), and SU(3) and Diff(M) for gravity, but I am not telling.
Hello:
I am a fringe physicist, which I define precisely as someone without an advanced degree in physic yet tries to make a contribution. I know that the majority of people with my background produce (how do we say this politely?) muddled duck dung. Our talks get slotted into the 8am slot at APS meetings, or put on the last day of a long meeting. Such is our station in research.
The only other folks in the audience are other people giving presentations. Important people are too busy.
My interest is to find out where I am wrong. If I can establish this, then instead of spending $900 to go to an APS meeting or $3k to go to an international meeting, that money can go into a 60" flat screen fund.
With YouTube, my talks are on line, http://youtube.com/my_playlists?p=E602756BE43B04E4
I'll be traveling to Brazil to see if I can find someone to puncture my balloon. If you are in Campinas Brazil next Thursday, then my talk is at 5:30 - the next to last day of ICCA 8. If not, I should be putting up the talk within a week.
Later,
Doug
Units can give you clues.
Newton's law of gravity only has the constant G. It is a classical approach to gravity. This is good enough for working with rockets.
In the Minkowski metric of spactime, there are the constants G and c. This is a relativistic approach to gravity. This is good enough for rockets that carry atomic clocks.
A quantum theory needs to have G, c, and h in the metric. I have NO IDEA why people bother with the current approach to strong gravity where quantum mechanics matters, and thus will require a metric with G, c, and h (other than their job depends on publishing). We don't have such a metric, ergo we can say zip about extremely strong gravitational fields.
There was one Einstein, there will not be another, ever. Nor will there be another Newton, Maxwell, Bohr, Dirac, Feynman, Weinberg, or Hawking. Very accomplished folks, but all over the place with their personalities, like how they would be in a bar (a topless bar if it was Feynman).
I support the project, not the marketing of the project.
General Relativity rocks. It is elegant in its minimialism. All efforts to add a little extra have failed, usually by allowing a dipole gravity wave mode of emission which has been ruled out by binary pulsar data.
The only field theory that is manifestly better than GR is the Maxwell field equations. Every time we have added to it in the name of symmetry, the theory has done more. James did it himself by tacking on the Ampere current. Einstein looked to get rid of a duplicate law, and so special relativity was born. With the huge supply of new particles coming out of atom smashers, the gauge symmetry in EM (U(1)) was expanded to SU(2) for the weak force, and SU(3) for the strong.
None of those smart cats listed in the initial post will be talking about the Maxwell equations. Too bad, the history of physics is clear: expand Maxwell, you win.
Max depends on the field strength tensor d_u A_v - d_v A_u. There is a subtraction in there, a great thing (called an exterior derivative). But in the name of symmetry, we need to work with the rest of it, d_u A_v + d_v A_u. Do that right, and you get a unified field theory that Einstein failed to find by looking for workable extensions of GR. Extend Max, not GR.
If anyone here wants to see the nuts and bolts of deriving the Maxwell equations using the Euler-Lagrange equations, search for "GEM action" on YouTube. A small variation - two minus signs - on the Maxwell equations leads to equations for gravity. Yes, I show that there is a metric solution (the Rosen metric if you are up on your GR jargon, a bunch of exponentials if not). Yes I know there is an issue of spin 1 and spin 2 which can be addressed if you get what the phase of current coupling really is.
YouTube can survive being slashdotted.
Are there any? I would love to film and/or project in circular polarization 3D.
Hello:
I am betting there will be no Higgs and no superpartners. When gravity is unified with EM as I have done, there will be no need for the Higgs boson, as mass itself does the job, thank you very much. Call my bluff, see my latest YouTube video with a nasty amount of math, deriving the good old Maxwell equations along with ones for gravity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9TUqUXGgpE
Doug
Or at least our current mathematical description of it is wrong. We cannot explain how disk galaxies spin. We cannot explain how the big bang happens without the magic fairy dust for inflation. Now we have a large wall of dark matter. Oh, and there is dark energy for galaxy acceleration. One more thing, we cannot quantize our approach to gravity.
These are the reasons I work on a rank 1 field theory for gravity. For the details, read as much of this thread as you like: http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=87097 This is a LONG thread, more than 36k views, I make learn things along the way. Right now I am trying to find derive the Maxwell equations, and then the unified field theory, instead of using tensors. Quite a bit of fun. I have never had to write so many partial differential equations in my life.
Doug
Newton kept absolute time separate from absolute space. Einstein allowed time to mix with space for inertial observers with special relativity. In 1915, he opened the door for time to mix with space in any situation using general relativity. Unfortunately, the math is too hard to apply.
I do all my physics with quaternions, a kind of 4D math designed to let time play with space. The smallest act of physics involves time and space playing together. To have time play with space quickly becomes confusing, but that is part of the fun. I have developed software to do this sort of thing using the command line at http://quaternions.sourceforge.net/
In a unified field theory, mass breaks the gauge symmetry EM, so no Higgs mechanism is needed.
Doug
Tom is a scientologist and a big promoter of the cause. There was much news recently about this video:
http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress
The issue is not his films, but this video. To quote the site:
"When you're a Scientologist, and you drive by an accident, you know you have to do something about it, because you know you're the only one who can really help... We are the way to happiness. We can bring peace and unite cultures."
Smells like teen crap to me. I also did some reading about their beliefs, and it is gibberish.
It is a privilege to do everything in our power for Tom. This crap is so valuable, you should pay a lot to prove you are a sucker.
Hello:
I hate lousy accounting. The fundamental coin of the Universe are events in spacetime. Talk about time separate from space, and garbage results. One needs to add, subtract, multiply, or divide events. The usual thing to do is to add. This is how we go forward in spacetime (mostly time, with a little bit of wandering in space to go from home to work to the grocery store and back).
There is no need for super symmetry either, a way of making spin 1/2 particles play nicely with spin 2 particles. Anyone who has watch diving at the summer olympics knows that one object can go around one axis at a different rate from another. It is easy enough to make a classical system where along one axis, it takes 2 pi to get around, and another axis 4 pi. I have the animations to prove it: http://picasaweb.google.com/dougsweetser/AnalyticAnimationsSpin12Spin1
doug
Look at the simplest quaternion wave equation, and if you are good, you can pick out the Maxwell equations and an rank 1 approach to gravity.
Look at workable definition of a quaternion derivative (a 2 limit process, where first the 3-vector goes to zero, then the scalar, or the reverse), and there is a reason why change is different in classical physics versus quantum mechanics.
Understand from a group theory standpoint that (A/|A| exp(A-A*))* (B/|B| exp(B-B*)) = 1 has the three symmetries found in the Standard Model, and you understand why we have a standard model.
Have fun with quaternions, but don't quit the day job. If physics really is quaternion math done right, then there is no Higgs, our good friend GR is wrong in the way Newton's gravity theory is wrong (useful, but not ultimately spot on), string theory is flat wrong, there is no dark matter. That should cover most people with a job in physics today.
doug
Silly Spaniards playing bogus number games. Quaternions are numbers, like the reals, but with 4 parts, a scalar one for time, and a 3-vector for 3D space. A scalar ain't never gonna be a vector. Ever. There is no finger pointing for scalars. This is why there is no arrow for time, never will be, but there is an arrow for spacetime, due to the space part of spacetime. If you look up "Standard Model" on YouTube, not arXiv, you can see they symmetries of EM, the weak force, the strong force, and gravity, U(1), SU(2), SU(3), and Diff(M) respectively. Those 4 symmetries are involved in the norm of two quaternions, where q* q' = 1. Play with the quaternion 4D wave equation, and you get competition for GR.
doug
barking up a real 4D tree by himself
instead of making dumb 11D claims
Read all about it on Bad Astronomy, http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/61876-gem-rank-1-unified-field-proposal.html. I know I should put it up on the physics archive, but they don't let fringe folks toss pdf's up there about a rank 1 field theory for gravity and light (yes, I figured out how the spin 2 graviton lives in the charge coupling term, if anyone here groks that issue). The test is to measure bending of light around the Sun, but six orders of magnitude better than needed to show Einstein was right, Newton was wrong. The GEM theory predicts 12% more bending, 0.8 microarcseconds, than the Schwarzschild metric. If we detect gravity waves, and measure them along 6 different axes, GR predicts the waves are transverse, and GEM predicts they would be longitudinal or scalar waves. Let the measurements decide!
doug
quaternions.com
Hello ObsessiveMathsFreak:
> Finally, when the numbers have all been crunched, how do you visualize your hard-earned data?
The project over at quaternions.sf.net will take a collection of 4 numbers, one for time, three for space, sort them by time, and then in the appropriate frame of the animation, place the dot at the right x, y, z location. The result is a 10 second gif. I found that a 3D animation was hard to understand, so I surround the quaternion animation with three complex planes: tx, ty, and tz. I also have the superpositions on the right side.
If you have a few thousand sets of 4 numbers you want to see animated as a quaternion and in 3 complex planes, feel free to contact me.
doug
Hello:
/. nerd, I do have my own unified field theory which has several testable hypotheses. It is 4D, I've got the action, field equations, and exponential metric solution for a point source. A discussion of the idea happened here:- gem-rank-1-unified-field-proposal.html
Like a good
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/61876
One test is to measure bending of light to second order PPN accuracy, basically a million times more than was needed to tell the difference between GR and Newton. Do that for GR, and there should be 10.96 microarcseconds more bending. For my GEM proposal, it should be 11.69, a difference of 0.73 microarcseconds. We can only make measurements to 100 microarcseconds today, bummer.
GEM also predicts that gravity waves should be the scalar and longitudinal modes of emission, since the transverse modes of emission are light. Cannot wait for those gravity waves to be detected!
I am pretty sure gravity is not going to mess with the speed of light in my proposal, where the vacuum state is linear, in gravity as in EM. In the GEM action, gravity lives in a second rank symmetric field strength tensor, and EM lives in a second rank antisymmetric tensor. The separate housing arrangements make sense since one is a spin 2 field, the other spin 1.
I hope it is the source.
doug
I had been reading "Feynaman Lectures on Gravitation", chapter 3 about the polarization of photons today. I walked the dogs with the wife. She wanted to give them an extra long walk, and I turned back home, without the keys to the house. Oops.
No paper, no pencil. There were some wood chips, so I used them to write out a representation of equation 3.2.10 which concerns the circular polarization of light. I was able to write a few variations using the wood chips. When she came back, I took a picture. It turned out the variations were not enough. What I really needed to do was change the conjugate operator from j* to (i j i)*. Do that, and it looks like a spin 2 symmetry discussed on page 39. Use the j* for photons where like charges repel, and (i j i)* for gravitons where like charges attract. Nice.
doug