Transcript Blue Border - Michigan State University

science, objectivity, the scientific
method, the Standard Model, and
the Other Model
salvatore gerard micheal
wrong definition of science:
"I'm gonna prove my idea! Even if I must shove it down your throat!"
Science is not proving any particular idea.
Typically, science is disproving ideas.
Science is not about proving your pet theory.
Science is about disproving alternatives so that you're left with very few choices to explain
phenomena.
Occam's Razor is core to science: given competing theories explaining some
set of phenomena, the simplest theory, the one with the least number of
assumptions - tends to be the correct one.
Objectivity is also core to science. It means honestly attempting to
look at alternatives equally. Key words here are honestly and
equally. Another way of saying it is: a balanced perspective. This is
extremely difficult in science, in practice, because we're human
beings and, somewhat automatically, have a preference for:
ideas/concepts which fit our rational framework, ideas/concepts
which fit our belief/religious system, and ideas which appeal to us
for any number of reasons. Perhaps we desire to 'get along' with a
close associate, we might appear to endorse some of their ideas so
that we may cooperate for other endeavors.. This, in particular, is
not scientific dishonesty - it's simply human nature and sometimes
required in real human life. But extend that concept to a group of
associates. We might have to adopt a set of values in order to be
allowed to interact with them, even if we disagree with those
values. We might end up violating our own integrity in order to
'find a place to air our own ideas' or develop them.. This can be the
case in conventional institutions or even here in the NPA.
The point above is: there's great value in a humble and balanced perspective.
.. A large part of my 'mission at NPA' is to inspire those individuals i interact with..
Part of inspiration is asking questions. Science cannot make progress without asking questions. But
not just 'any old questions'.. Sometimes, it must be 'the right questions' asked at 'the right time' for
science to make true progress.
Let's consider this moment in scientific history:
the Standard Model predicts the Higgs, responsible for mass in that scenario
research into General Relativity predicts gravitational waves;
energy can be distributed through the fabric of spacetime
the Standard Model has done partial unification of 'four forces':
electro-weak (electromagnetism with weak nuclear)
strong
gravity
combining them, reducing them, to three forces above
The Standard Model has two concepts at its heart:
inherent randomness; particles are probability
waves; particles resemble random variables
forces are mediated by virtual exchange; things
called 'virtual bosons' mediate each force
Convention contends this is the simplest theory
explaining quantum phenomena and gravitation.
They believe they have been 'following' Occam's
Razor in development of the Standard Model and
GR. But have they?
i realize the name Einstein is somewhat 'dirty' here
in NPA .. Not many favor that man nor his ideas.
But he had some interesting proposals. The
equivalence between matter and energy. The
idea that matter warps spacetime.. These ideas,
no matter how 'wrong' they seem to some NPA
members - have some value and inspired some
aspects of the Other Model.
So what is the Other Model? It's actually quite simple..
The ideas are exceedingly simple and conservative:
0. things interact only when they have something in common
(charges interact, masses interact, magnets interact,..
and perhaps 'most importantly': photons and masses interact)
1. space is Euclidean, flat, continuous, inelastic, and explicitly 3D
2. what we think of as curved space, GR, is actually curved time: TR
TR explains mass, inertia, gravitation, and strong force
3. conservation of curvature is perhaps the most fundamental law in our universe
as a consequence of this, there must be antiphotons,
photons with very slight negative curvature; they immediately become the preferred
mechanism for electromagnetic interactions
4. consistent with this proposal: photons are transverse electromagnetic waves oscillating
out of phase with temporal curvature: explicitly real entities with exact specifications;
these entities must be describable as spacetime wavelets / spacelets
5. electrons, protons, and the like must also be describable as spacelets
Of course, there are many implications (some are directly
testable) of this perspective. Blackholes become curiosities nothing more. Gravitational waves become unlikely. Higgs
become pure fantasy. W/Z bosons are simply intermediate
decay products..
...
There's too much data to try to cram: equation details, attempts
at spacelet design, and why TR explains the features
mentioned above - into today's meeting. i wanted to present
an overview of my take on the scientific method, why
convention has gone astray, and basic details of the Other
Model. Below, please find a brief introduction to three core
concepts required in the Other Model but neglected by
convention..
The impedance of space:
electrical engineering books, like Kraus, can derive the impedance of space, ~377 ohms, from the perspective of an ideal
transmission line
this concept is absolutely required in the Other Model
it's a quality of spacetime or time
so spacetime is not strictly Euclidean
Elasticity:
any medium that can be 'stretched' must be elastic to some degree
you cannot stretch/deform an inelastic medium; this is an engineering fact
therefore, spacetime (or time) must be elastic
with a few assumptions, this value can be calculated explicitly
so from another perspective, spacetime is not strictly Euclidean
The exact nature of a photon/electromagnetic wave:
in Kraus, you can find a diagram of a transverse electromagnetic wave (in other words, a photon)
it's described as 'self propagating'..
but this is extremely dissatisfying - WHY does it self-propagate? .. no one would seem to suggest why..
Let's deal with the first two issues first. There must be some
way spacetime/time 'encodes' the properties into 'the
fabric' of spacetime/time.. Somehow, if the universe is
'defined' anywhere, it must include those two concepts.
Our universe cannot allow electromagnetic interactions
without impedance; our universe cannot allow elastic
interaction without elasticity. These seem to be basic
engineering facts. Spacetime/time is an impeding elastic
medium.
The reason i keep saying 'spacetime/time' is because the
simpler idea is time alone. If we allow spacetime to curve,
we need another dimension for it to 'curve into': 5D. So this
idea requires a fifth dimension .. Not very elegant; we don't
see/sense a fifth dimension.. The simpler idea is that time
alone curves into space - not requiring any extra
dimensions.
Now let's deal with the exact nature of the photon:
Let's suppose for a moment that convention is correct about everything:
the Higgs determines mass
virtual bosons determine forces between masses
masses are random variables
and photons cannot be described exactly - they can only be talked about as
ensembles
it's meaningless, within the Standard Model, to even try to talk about individual
photons..
but..
If that's true, why haven't we detected any Higgs?
Why haven't we detected proton decay?
If quantum systems are inherently random, then why don't we have unequivocal
proof they are?
This indicates: they may not be inherently random!
Photons may have exact characteristics!
We may actually live in a 3D+1 deterministic universe!
Would that be so horrible?
Would whole populations of scientists 'just go crazy' if it were so?
Perhaps ;)
Science has rejected the Other Model even before it was discovered
because science rejects anything containing any concept resembling
'the aether' (impedance).
Science rejects the Other Model because it so happens to depend on a
Prime Cause for initiating the Big Bang. Is that such a crime?
This is slide 13.

Let's avoid 'bad luck' by skipping this number.

Why don't hotels have a 13th floor?

Have you ever wondered?

How much of human behavior is based on
superstition?

Have we counted the ways?

Even i find myself knocking on wood..
[in jest]
Pretty soon, they will hold hearings for 'scientific heresy' and convict
people like me of it.. Pretty soon, people like me will not only be
ignored, mocked, and ridiculed - they'll be ostracized, jobless, and
even thrown in jail for false reasons - just to keep us quiet.
Why?
Because physics has made a 'big business' of investigating things like
the Higgs.
Many jobs depend on things like that..
When you question things like the Higgs, you become blackballed.
You cannot find decent employment.
It's difficult to find people you can just talk to about alternatives..
Truly, a revolution in physics is 'waiting in the wings'.
We must show the general public that conventional
physicists are opportunistic conmen.
They will keep their jobs and security at any cost
including:
scientific integrity
scientific objectivity
rationality
reasonableness
and any sense of realism.
[changing gears a little]
Please don't automatically dismiss Einstein because he was a 'darling' for a very brief
time in the history of physics. Bohr crushed him in public and so quantum mechanics
has pursued a dead-end via inherent randomness and virtual exchange. Blame Bohr
and Feynman if you must blame anyone. Those two men, more than anyone, have
put physics on a path of delusion/insanity.
Without GR, we would not have TR.
Even Feynman, without his concept of virtual exchange, i doubt i would have discovered
charged antiphotons to explain electromagnetism.
.. An old friend of mine stated: "physics goes in circles/cycles" .. Sometimes, physics is
dominated by determinism, sometimes it's dominated by virtual randomness, and
someday, it will return to rationality..
i can pray, i can hope, and i can make every effort possible for that to come true..
nine theorems/conjecture
Definitions:
adequate: reflecting reality with accuracy and precision
quantum reality: elementary particles, photons, and antiphotons are real
local causal entities with precise attributes, resembling spacetime
wavelets / spacelets, at any one instant of spacetime
antiphoton: negative curvature, some proportion charged,
electromagnetic-temporal spacelet; a transverse electromagnetic wave
oscillating out-of-phase with negative temporal curvature
temporal relativity: deeper / more fundamental than general relativity,
based on temporal curvature, further based on the elasticity of time
temporal impedance: another aspect of time: the delay of electromagnetic
events, previously assigned to space but with deeper understanding associated with time
Theorem 1: no adequate theory of quantum gravity
will ever developed based on virtual exchange
and inherent randomness in 3D+1 dimensions.
Reason: gravity is not based on virtual exchange;
it's based on temporal curvature.
Corollary 1: no adequate unification theory will
ever be developed to explain the 'four forces'
based on virtual exchange and inherent
randomness in 3D+1 dimensions.
Theorem 2: QED is so successful because it mimics an underlying
quantum reality based on charged antiphotons.
Theorem 3: self-interference is explainable with spacelet theory.
Theorem 4: the 'weak force' is a misnomer and is completely
explainable in the quantum realism framework as a direct result
of: nuclear geometry, spin, and vibration.
Theorem 5: the strong force is based on temporal curvature.
Theorem 6: reality is based on quantum realism not inherent
randomness and virtual exchange.
Theorem 7: spacetime is causal, realistic, and continuous: 3 flat
Euclidean dimensions and one unidirectional/causal time
dimension that can curve into space.
Theorem 8: time/spacetime has two very specific and interrelated
qualities with equivalent characteristics as impedance and
elasticity; time/spacetime is not strictly Euclidean with no
properties; space may be equivalent to R^3, but time may
resemble a vector.
Theorem 9: conservation of curvature: creation/destruction of
matter/energy always conserves curvature; the curvature of
inputs to an event always equals the output; matter annihilation /
pair production always conserves curvature; photon
creation/emission and destruction/absorption always conserves
curvature.
Discussion:
Historically, quantum mechanics has pulled away from religion
and 'the ether' because these concepts impede the
progress of science. Religions have attempted to control
perceptions and beliefs which relate to scientific truth.
Religions have claimed a unique relationship with God and
so the concept of God is rejected by conventional science.
The ether has been rejected as a medium for
electromagnetism. This has been essentially proven
beyond reasonable doubt. And so any concept resembling
or relating to 'the ether', such as the impedance of space, is
always automatically rejected by theoretical physics.
Unfortunately, the concept of God, as Prime Cause, may be
required for a realistic cosmology. And, the concepts of
elasticity and impedance may be required for the same.
.. Legs are required for walking; wings are
required for flying; impedance is required for
electromagnetic expression; elasticity is required
for 'things to stretch' .. Something must have
elasticity to stretch/deform; something must
have impedance to delay electromagnetic
events. The simpler theory associates
impedance and elasticity with time. Temporal
relativity is the general theory which
includes/requires temporal elasticity. Temporal
impedance is somewhat speculative in this
framework but seems to fit the general scheme.

The easiest way to 'prove me wrong'..

..is to dismiss me as 'lunatic fringe'..

The more objective/fair/scientific way..



..is to disprove each point above in a rational /
reasonable way..
i personally challenge each member of NPA and
each member of conventional theoretical
physics – to disprove each point above..
Otherwise, we cannot make progress in
science.
Some associated links:
https://www.msu.edu/~micheal/WfM.pdf
a booklet on 'God-physics'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_realism
while it lasts;) - as of 2001/JUL/17 - has been deleted
http://www.nowpublic.com/user/483721/assignments
lists of articles on NowPublic
http://www.scribd.com/sam_micheal
'backup' of articles above