Alternative quantum theory

[ec1968]

The big problem I'm having now is that trying to find solutions gives weird answers, so I think it's a nice theory, but it might not give nice predictions. :)

If the theory doesn't give answers that match what is found experimentally, then the theory is incorrect. It really doesn't matter how 'nice' you think it is, it has to give the right answers or there is no point.

On a more general point, I'm struggling to understand your rationale for doing what you're doing. Can you explain what it is you're aiming for, and why?

What I know of QM, and the associated expansions of it i.e. QED and QCD, is that the mathematics of the theory reproduces to a high degree of accuracy the results of all experiments that have been done to-date. This suggests that, as it stands, the theory is the best one available for explaining the observed phenomena. So again, I'm a bit lost as to the purpose of your exercise. Can you help me out there?

Cheers

 

[Archaea]

The matrices are really creation/annihilation operators via spacetime components x spinor fermion/antifermion and position/momentum operators via spacetime position x spacetime momentum. In Wikipedia's Dirac equation article it says:

The Dirac equation may now be interpreted as an eigenvalue equation, where the rest mass is proportional to an eigenvalue of the 4-momentum operator, the proportionality constant being the speed of light:

...in Feynman slash notation, which includes the gamma matrices as well as a summation over the spinor components in the derivative itself, the Dirac equation becomes:

back to me: The idea of spin via spacetime can be seen here (the Feynman Checkerboard is spin network-like):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_network

So yes I would agree mass and spin are not fundamental.

I'm interested to learn about Feynman checkerboards and spin networks at some stage. However, I'm not convinced that we can just put mc as the eigenvalue for momentum without having a good definition for mass. That's why I was interested to see what the Dirac equation would be for a massless and spin-less particle.

As for creation and annihilation operators, in this theory, because the "Hamiltonian(s)" are different we can really only use the general versions (Wikipedia page):

[H, N]ψ = cNψ
iћψ(dN/dt) = cNψ

And so:

Nψ = e-(ic/ћ)tψ

This means that we can change the energy levels by what ever we like, and since the "Hamiltonian(s)" are not dependent on the particular structure of the system there are no discrete energy levels. This isn't true for polar coordinates and angular momentum however.

The big problem I'm having now is that trying to find solutions gives weird answers, so I think it's a nice theory, but it might not give nice predictions. :)

If the theory doesn't give answers that match what is found experimentally, then the theory is incorrect. It really doesn't matter how 'nice' you think it is, it has to give the right answers or there is no point.

On a more general point, I'm struggling to understand your rationale for doing what you're doing. Can you explain what it is you're aiming for, and why?

What I know of QM, and the associated expansions of it i.e. QED and QCD, is that the mathematics of the theory reproduces to a high degree of accuracy the results of all experiments that have been done to-date. This suggests that, as it stands, the theory is the best one available for explaining the observed phenomena. So again, I'm a bit lost as to the purpose of your exercise. Can you help me out there?

Cheers

I'm ready to abandon the theory, but I don't think I need to just yet .

What I'm trying to do is develop a mathematically consistent theory of physics. It seems to me that a lot of the equations used in modern physics are unbalanced and this is why physicists struggle so much trying to bring all the various branches together. What I think they're trying to do is put two (or more) mutually exclusive pieces of information together without letting anything go.

QED works pretty well, but as far as I know QCD is notoriously hard to test, the calculations required to test the theory are NP-hard I think.

 

[Archaea]

We can write the equation (where v is supposed to be c):

As a pair of ordinary differential equations, similar to what's done in this Wikipedia page, So:

dψ/dt = ±iωψ and dψ/dx = ±i(ω/c)ψ

We need to put the i in to make sure the momentum and energy eigenvalues are real numbers.

If we define a momentum operator vector as:

P = iћ[∂/∂x ∂/∂y ∂/∂z]T = iћ∇

And then take two orthogonal vectors a and b and let:

Pψ = (a x b)ψ

Then iћ∇ψ · a = 0 and iћ∇ψ · b = 0, so (Wikipedia page for vector calculus identities):

iћ(∇ · (ψa) - ψ(∇ · a)) = 0

So if the divergence of a is zero then ∇ · (ψa) = 0. I think this is true for free space but not in a gravitational field... What I'm trying to get at here is Maxwell's equations. We can get the same thing for the b vector.

Using the other vector identity:

iћ(∇ x (ψa)) = iћ((∇ψ) x a) + iћψ(∇ x a))

For a momentum eigenfunction Pψ = [Px Py Pz]ψ = Pψ, and P x a = q1b and P x b = q2a for some constants q1 and q2. Also since P is just a vector now (Pψ) x a = ψ(P x a). Putting this all together:

P x ψa = iћ∇ x ψa = 2q1bψ

Setting 2q1 = ±ω/ћ and recalling that ±iωψ = dψ/dt means that:

∇ x ψa = b(dψ/dt) = dbψ/dt - ψ(db/dt)

And we can do the same thing to get:

∇ x ψb = a(dψ/dt) = daψ/dt - ψ(da/dt)

In an earlier post I said that:

E(r, t) ∝ ψ(r, t)
B(r, t) ∝ ψ(r, t)

For an electromagnetic wave, Well if,

E(r, t) = aψ(r, t)
B(r, t) = bψ(r, t)

And we can show that E and B must be orthogonal to each other and the direction of movement of the wave without using Maxwell's equations, and set the angular momentum of E and B to zero, then we can construct the differential form of Maxwell's equations for free space.

It's interesting to note that according to this if the divergence of a and b are not zero then the curl of the Poynting vector isn't zero either.

 

[John G]

Physically there are kind of two different masses, inertial mass and gravitational mass. The Feynman Checkerboard model I pay attention to thinks of inertial mass as a slowing down via attraction to the Dirac sea of particles with operators (for change of direction) being how you slow down. Gravitational mass comes via diffusion equations on the Checkerboard (for the gravitons related to the slowing down).

The creation/annihilation operators are different for bosons and fermions. The ones you mention are for bosons. I tend to think of bosonic creation/annihilation operators in terms of their gauge symmetry (much simpler). Here's that for QED:

http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node508.html

Fermion creation/annihilation relate to what Loop Quantum Gravity does with intertwiners at the vertices (Feynman Checkerboards have fermions on the vertices and bosons on the links) which are via Wikipedia's LQG article are "prescriptions for how to sum over different ways the spins are rerouted". The spin network/Checkerboard is the spacetime.

On a Planck scale Feynman Checkerboard, things do kind of get forced to be discrete.

 

[Archaea]

Physically there are kind of two different masses, inertial mass and gravitational mass. The Feynman Checkerboard model I pay attention to thinks of inertial mass as a slowing down via attraction to the Dirac sea of particles with operators (for change of direction) being how you slow down. Gravitational mass comes via diffusion equations on the Checkerboard (for the gravitons related to the slowing down).

The creation/annihilation operators are different for bosons and fermions. The ones you mention are for bosons. I tend to think of bosonic creation/annihilation operators in terms of their gauge symmetry (much simpler). Here's that for QED:

http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node508.html

Fermion creation/annihilation relate to what Loop Quantum Gravity does with intertwiners at the vertices (Feynman Checkerboards have fermions on the vertices and bosons on the links) which are via Wikipedia's LQG article are "prescriptions for how to sum over different ways the spins are rerouted". The spin network/Checkerboard is the spacetime.

On a Planck scale Feynman Checkerboard, things do kind of get forced to be discrete.

A lot of that is mainstream physics, with the theory I'm working on now I haven't got up to fermions, and there's only one boson, the photon, although it's not a mainstream physics photon. The notes you link to start off by stating the Lagrangian, but I think phase space isn't well defined in quantum mechanics, which means the Lagrangian isn't well defined either.

Once I have some idea of how spin and angular momentum fit into what I'm doing I'll be able to discuss this stuff, until then I think we're probably going to be on different pages.

 

[Archaea]

In some of the UFO documentaries on Youtube the idea that a gravitational field can be created by a rotating magnetic field is put forward. If we look at the equatons:

∇ · (ψa) = ψ∇ · a
∇ · (ψb) = ψ∇ · b

Which are really just:

∇ · E = ψ∇ · a
∇ · B = ψ∇ · b

Where E and B are the electric and magnetic fields for an electromagnetic wave. Then we can see that if the magnetic field is rotating, so that ∇ · b is not 0 there must be some sort of "magnetic charge" density. My thinking is that a rotating magnetic field will give off electromagnetic radiation with angular momentum, and since the light has angular momentum it must be in a gravitational field. We should get the same thing for a rotating electric field, but since |E| = c|B| for an electromagnetic wave, the effect should be much weaker than for a rotating magnetic field.

The other thing we can do is try and find the analog for Maxwell's equations in momentum three space. If we define a position operator vector as:

x = iћ[∂/∂Px ∂/∂Py ∂/∂Pz]T = iћ∇

And Two orthogonal vectors ap and bp, which are both orthogonal to ∇φ, then we can get the equations:

iћ(∇ · (φap) - φ(∇ · ap)) = 0
iћ(∇ · (φbp) - φ(∇ · bp)) = 0

∇ x φap = bp(dφ/dt) = dbpφ/dt - φ(dbp/dt)
∇ x φbp = ap(dφ/dt) = dapφ/dt - φ(dap/dt)

In the same way we got these equations in position three space.

Ra uses colour to describe the different densities, 3rd density being yellow and 4th density being green, and there's this snippet from Session 27 May 1995:

(RS) Yes! This article I presented is exactly about this point! If, indeed, anti- particles have lift, then necessarily they have to go backward in time. Then they manipulate this: you can have an abduction any length of time inside the craft, but in our time, in our level three, it is zero time!

(L) Yes, exactly! And not only that, there is the phenomenon of the craft that looks small from the outside, but inside is huge!

(RS) That is all tied up in it! This is very exciting. I am learning the language. In our third level, the motion in space and time occurs via the change of the unit of time and space, therefore, can we change the unit?

A: Yes, this is precisely what we mean when we speak of "transiting from 4th to 3rd."

I think maybe the term density refers to "photonic energy density." Colour as we perceive it depends on the frequency of an electromagnetic wave, which is a momentum eigenstate and doesn't have any position, so perhaps density depends on the frequency of a photon, which is a position eigenstate and doesn't have any momentum. This could explain how different regions of "space" can have different densities.

 

[John G]

I do think for gravitomagnetism that magnetic moment, angular momentum, and mass have a relationship in some situations and you can have E and B for gravitomagnetism.

http://www.tony5m17h.net/SarfattiCastroPioneerKepler.pdf

I also think you can have a different cosmological constant in different areas of space and that the cosmological constant relates to gravitomagnetism and that both relate to the conformal group which could relate to a 3rd to 4th density transition but in general densities are more complicated. Going from 1st to 2nd involves forming DNA for example. I do think you could have a high level information theory description that allows densities to be seen as varying via some characteristics. I think of Laura as having done that by relating densities to the Sephirot. Physics could have the same information theory structure but with different assigned characteristics. Ark here has talked about having an 8-real dim monad related to a groupoid and he currently seems interested in Wolfram's 2^8=256 rule cellular automata. It would be nice to have a useful cellular automata as well as a group theory QFT.

 

[sitting]

Ark here has talked about having an 8-real dim monad related to a groupoid and he currently seems interested in Wolfram's 2^8=256 rule cellular automata. It would be nice to have a useful cellular automata as well as a group theory QFT.

Hi Bluelamp,

Have you factored in what Ark had said recently -- about his 20 year effort on quantum theory?
And does this affect your own thinking and view of things at all?

This subject is WAY over my head. But I do have the curiosity (of a novice) concerning this realization and change of direction.

FWIW.

 

[John G]

Have you factored in what Ark had said recently -- about his 20 year effort on quantum theory?
And does this affect your own thinking and view of things at all?

Hi, yes, Ark seems to be changing from his EEQT created math/fractals to some "easier" for nature cellular automata math/fractals. Ark does say his EEQT stuff was useful; I think he just didn't see it as being overly natural. The cellular automata math might fit easier with his more classical conformal infinity work too. I follow Ark's latest thoughts via his blog via google translate which makes it a bit tough to follow but then Ark's papers in English aren't exactly easy to follow either since I'm an electrical engineer not a mathematical physicist.

One of my first jobs at IBM was some simple cellular automata algorithms for optical circuit board testers and one of the problems we had was handling the borders of the scanned images. Ark's latest post on his blog mentioned that problem for Wolfram's cellular automata rules too. One of these days I'd like to understand Wolfram's work better in relation to group theory physics degrees of freedom for rotations, boosts, translations, dilations, conformal transformations, etc. It should I would think help me better understand Feynman Checkerboards too.

I've come across information for Wolfram's work and Feynman Checkerboards before but it wasn't quite at a simple enough level for me. Reminds me of when I tried to plot a math property (Triality) on a Root Vector diagram and never got it right until someone explicitly did it using Flash eight years ago or so. There are some things that we non-physicists can understand but it requires a more explicit often visual description.

 

[sitting]

... one of the problems we had was handling the borders of the scanned images. Ark's latest post on his blog mentioned that problem for Wolfram's cellular automata rules too.

Hi Bluelamp,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I really appreciate it.

When I saw your mention of borders, it brought to mind an interesting description Seth had given on boundaries. How each universe (out of an infinite number?) sets & establishes it's own "rules" of camouflage. Within a unique boundary.

Another interesting Seth observation was about an individual's energetic "cocoon." A personal energy enclosure of sorts. This border & boundary stuff is really intriguing, but my comprehension is limited.

Regarding Ark, I'm excited for him as he's about to begin his "Great Work." I'm guessing by the use of this term, the C's are hinting at something bigger than just physics.

But I could be wrong.

FWIW.

 

[Archaea]

I do think for gravitomagnetism that magnetic moment, angular momentum, and mass have a relationship in some situations and you can have E and B for gravitomagnetism.

I was leaning in this direction too, but I've changed my mind a little since the C's said that EM gravity was an ether theory.

When I saw your mention of borders, it brought to mind an interesting description Seth had given on boundaries. How each universe (out of an infinite number?) sets & establishes it's own "rules" of camouflage. Within a unique boundary.

Another interesting Seth observation was about an individual's energetic "cocoon." A personal energy enclosure of sorts. This border & boundary stuff is really intriguing, but my comprehension is limited.

While reading some of the Seth stuff, I noticed that as far as I'm aware, Seth knew a few things that the physicists of the day didn't know. However, I think maybe the the ideas of camouflage really only make sense in terms of what Seth calls framework 2, which I think is what Don Juan calls the second attention. I think that since physics is a model of how framework 1 works, it doesn't have the conceptual scope to describe these kinds of energetic boundaries. However, I could be wrong about that... don't quote me.


OK, this is all pretty tenuous and hand wavy, but I want to post it anyway. Imagine, if you want, that an EM wave is spinning on it's magnetic axis, so that it's electric axis is spinning around in a plane. then the b vector is parallel to the angular momentum vector (L), and the a vector is normal to the angular momentum vector (L) and the ordinary momentum vector (p), so let:

a = L x p/|L x p|
b = L/|L|

It's pretty straight forward to show that ∇ · L = 0, so ∇ · b = 0. And:

∇ · (L x p) = p · (∇ x L) - L · (∇ x p)

But ∇ x p = 0, so:

∇ · a = p · (∇ x L)/|L x p|

This means that there is an electric charge density, assuming that p · (∇ x L) isn't 0, and there's no "magnetic charge" density, and the magnetic moment is always pointing in the same direction. This is my model of the electron, it's just theory, but theory is science too... I just ripped it off the "matter is trapped light idea." We can also do the same thing where the light is spinning on its electric axis, So there's no electric charge density, but there's magnetic charge density. I was going to call these "particles" magnetos, assuming I get to name them, but I think I'll name them after myself and call them archons.


Now on to some real science, there are 7 types of crystallographic symmetries:

*Translation (By some fixed length)
*Rotation (1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 6- fold)
*Reflection
*Inversion

The last three are composite symmetries:

*Glide plane, reflection and translation
*Screw axis, rotation and translation
*Roto-inversion, Rotation and inversion

The four basic crystallographic symmetries are unitary, so let the operator U stand in for any of the symmetries. Assume now that if a potential displays one of these symmetries then U commutes with the potential energy operator V. This is OK because this is what they do to find Bloch waves and I'm following that pretty closely here.

Alright, since U is unitary:

Uφ = eiaφ

Where φ is the wavefunction in momentum space, and a is some angle or something. We can't do this with the wavefunction in position space because V acts in momentum space. Let's now create a function:

f(p) = e-iqpφ
Uf(p) = eiae-iqpUφ
Uf(p) = eiae-iqpeiaφ
Uf(p) = ei2af(p)

So Uf(p) = f(p) (f(p) has the symmetry) if a = 0, π, 3π/2, ...

This means that: φ = eiqpf(p), where q is the "crystal position," whatever that means. This is a Bloch wave in momentum space, for the case where U is a rotation I like to call them Bloch spirals.

For the case where U is a translation, a = Lp, so p = 0, π/L, 3π/2L, ...

The next thing to do is figure out how to calculate Bloch waves for some types of crystals and see whether the theory explains some observations. There are a lot of observations to explain, which is good, because we should know for sure whether this theory is worth anything.

 

[sitting]

When I saw your mention of borders, it brought to mind an interesting description Seth had given on boundaries. How each universe (out of an infinite number?) sets & establishes it's own "rules" of camouflage. Within a unique boundary.

Another interesting Seth observation was about an individual's energetic "cocoon." A personal energy enclosure of sorts.

I think maybe the the ideas of camouflage really only make sense in terms of what Seth calls framework 2,

This idea of boundaries has far deeper implications than just physics -- in my opinion.

On an individual basis, it is the attribute that gives rise to the concept of self ... from which comes the entire gamut of problems & difficulties in our lives.

Self becomes the preoccupation ... me ... me ... me. No end. It's here, and everywhere. And all because of this individual boundary (in our physicality.)

Castaneda called for the elimination of "self-importance."
Ra speaks of the "dissolution into nothingness ... and hence unity."
Seth stresses going beyond framework 1 -- utilizing inner senses to see the whole.
The Tibetans (more complex & precise) ... refers to the "non-conceptual cognition of voidness."

But it all boils down to the same thing.

I find the C's said it best, and most elegantly: true empathy ... no more and no less than that.

I could be wrong.

FWIW.

 

[John G]

I do think for gravitomagnetism that magnetic moment, angular momentum, and mass have a relationship in some situations and you can have E and B for gravitomagnetism.

I was leaning in this direction too, but I've changed my mind a little since the C's said that EM gravity was an ether theory.

When I saw your mention of borders, it brought to mind an interesting description Seth had given on boundaries. How each universe (out of an infinite number?) sets & establishes it's own "rules" of camouflage. Within a unique boundary.

Another interesting Seth observation was about an individual's energetic "cocoon." A personal energy enclosure of sorts. This border & boundary stuff is really intriguing, but my comprehension is limited.

While reading some of the Seth stuff, I noticed that as far as I'm aware, Seth knew a few things that the physicists of the day didn't know. However, I think maybe the the ideas of camouflage really only make sense in terms of what Seth calls framework 2, which I think is what Don Juan calls the second attention. I think that since physics is a model of how framework 1 works, it doesn't have the conceptual scope to describe these kinds of energetic boundaries. However, I could be wrong about that... don't quote me.


OK, this is all pretty tenuous and hand wavy, but I want to post it anyway. Imagine, if you want, that an EM wave is spinning on it's magnetic axis, so that it's electric axis is spinning around in a plane. then the b vector is parallel to the angular momentum vector (L), and the a vector is normal to the angular momentum vector (L) and the ordinary momentum vector (p), so let:

a = L x p/|L x p|
b = L/|L|

It's pretty straight forward to show that ∇ · L = 0, so ∇ · b = 0. And:

∇ · (L x p) = p · (∇ x L) - L · (∇ x p)

But ∇ x p = 0, so:

∇ · a = p · (∇ x L)/|L x p|

This means that there is an electric charge density, assuming that p · (∇ x L) isn't 0, and there's no "magnetic charge" density, and the magnetic moment is always pointing in the same direction. This is my model of the electron, it's just theory, but theory is science too... I just ripped it off the "matter is trapped light idea." We can also do the same thing where the light is spinning on its electric axis, So there's no electric charge density, but there's magnetic charge density. I was going to call these "particles" magnetos, assuming I get to name them, but I think I'll name them after myself and call them archons.


Now on to some real science, there are 7 types of crystallographic symmetries:

*Translation (By some fixed length)
*Rotation (1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 6- fold)
*Reflection
*Inversion

The last three are composite symmetries:

*Glide plane, reflection and translation
*Screw axis, rotation and translation
*Roto-inversion, Rotation and inversion

The four basic crystallographic symmetries are unitary, so let the operator U stand in for any of the symmetries. Assume now that if a potential displays one of these symmetries then U commutes with the potential energy operator V. This is OK because this is what they do to find Bloch waves and I'm following that pretty closely here.

Alright, since U is unitary:

Uφ = eiaφ

Where φ is the wavefunction in momentum space, and a is some angle or something. We can't do this with the wavefunction in position space because V acts in momentum space. Let's now create a function:

f(p) = e-iqpφ
Uf(p) = eiae-iqpUφ
Uf(p) = eiae-iqpeiaφ
Uf(p) = ei2af(p)

So Uf(p) = f(p) (f(p) has the symmetry) if a = 0, π, 3π/2, ...

This means that: φ = eiqpf(p), where q is the "crystal position," whatever that means. This is a Bloch wave in momentum space, for the case where U is a rotation I like to call them Bloch spirals.

For the case where U is a translation, a = Lp, so p = 0, π/L, 3π/2L, ...

The next thing to do is figure out how to calculate Bloch waves for some types of crystals and see whether the theory explains some observations. There are a lot of observations to explain, which is good, because we should know for sure whether this theory is worth anything.

A rotation is kind of a composite of reflections. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_rotations_and_reflections

A rotation in the plane can be formed by composing a pair of reflections.

There's also boosts, dilations, and special conformal transformations though boosts are kind of rotations using a time coordinate and the special conformal transformations are composites of inversions and a translation. Conformal transformations relate to the gravitomagnetic force (note that link I gave for E and B for gravitomagnetism was entitled "Our Conformal Keplerian Solar System"). The math of the special conformal transformations includes the math of a compressible aether so this is an aether thing. To really do a compressible aether, you might need to be at a high energy but at low energy, things can still look like a compressible aether in a gravitational torsion-like way via the conformal group being linear for a 6-dim spacetime but non-linear from a 4-dim viewpoint.

http://www.tony5m17h.net/topolophys.html#compaeth

the Conformal Group Spin(2,4) = SU(2,2) with 15 generators:

1 Dilation;
4 Special Conformal Transformations (Non-linear Mobius Fractional
Projective Transformations);
3 Rotations plus 3 Boosts; and
4 Translations.

The 4 Translations and 3 Rotations plus 3 Boosts form the 10-dimensional anti-deSitter group Spin(2,3) that produces Gravity by the MacDowell-Mansouri Mechanism as described by Freund in Chapter 21 of his book Introduction to Supersymmetry (Cambridge 1986), saying: "... [if we do not assume space-inversion invariance] we could have ... a parity-violating gravity. This would [produce] ... solutions of the gravitational field equations without definite space-inversion properties. ... Unlike in Einstein's theory, ... [the MacDowell-Mansouri Mechanism] ... does not require the Riemannian invertibility of the metric. ... [The MacDowell-Mansouri Mechanism] is wider in scope than the ordinary Hilbert-Einstein formulation. ... the solution has torsion ... produced by an interference between parity violating and parity conserving amplitudes. Parity violation and torsion go hand-in-hand. ...".

The Parity-Violating Gravitational Torsion described by Freund is different from the Affine Torsion that gives the Structure Constants of the Lie Algebras of the Gauge Groups. Like Einstein's Gravitational Curvature of SpaceTime, the Gravitational Torsion of SpaceTime is an Effective Deformation of 4-dim Physical SpaceTime in which 4-dim Physical SpaceTime effectively appears to be, not an immutable RP1 x S3, but a Compressible Aether.

The Gravitational Torsion is NOT fixed by the theory to be the gravitational constant G, as pointed out by Ivanenko and Saradanashvily, in Physics Reports 94 (1983) 1-45, where they say: "... the gravitation Lg [and] the torsion Ls ... components of a total Lagrangian may be chosen independently of each other, e.g. Lg is the Hilbert-Einstein Lagrangian of [General Relativity, but] ... Ls ...[could be a] Lagrangian of the Yang-Mills type. ... nothing requires that coupling constants of the torsion ... coincide with the gravitation constant ... In particular, torsion ... coupling constants may be chosen much stronger than the gravitational one, which opens the door to the hypothesis about the possibility of strong torsion ... whose effect would be comparable with weak or strong interaction effects. ...".

The 4 Special Conformal Transformations (Non-linear Mobius Fractional Projective Transformations) preserve discontinuities, signals, and other properties of characteristics that are not restricted to a finite propagation speed. They correspond to the Conformal GraviPhotons...

The Dilation sets the scale of the Higgs VeV at 250 GeV so that general deformations of SpaceTime can take place only above that energy level, while GraviPhoton Special Conformal (Hopf flow) transformations are useful in Conformal deformations of SpaceTime.

Incompressibility of the Aether below 250 GeV is only with respect to the 6-dim vector space of the Conformal Group Spin(2,4), so that below 250 GeV you can see Conformal phenomena that appear to show compressibility from the point of view of 3-dim space or 4-dim Minkowski spacetime. Such conformal phenomena include the Fock superluminal solutions of Maxwell's equations that are described by R. M. Kiehn.

http://www.tony5m17h.net/SegalConf.html#gvphstrength

If the GraviPhoton force is about 137 times stronger than the gravitational force, then why is it not an obvious everyday force?

Unlike gravitation, and like electromagnetism, the GraviPhoton force will cancel itself out in matter that is randomly oriented. The rotating astrophysical bodies that give evidence (described by Wesson) for the GraviPhoton force are rotating in a coordinated way such that the cancellation does not occur...

From the point of view of a neutral Kerr-Newman Black Hole,
with coincident outer and inner event horizons,
with irreducible mass M, angular momentum J, and charge Q:

Q^2 + (J/M)^2 = M^2

Dividing through by M^2, you get

J^2/M^4 = (J/M^2)^2 = 1 - (Q/M)^2

Setting Q/M = x you get

(assuming that p_astro(Wesson) = (G/C) (1/alpha), with natural
units G = c = 1 so that p_astro(Wesson) = 1 / alpha )

J = sqrt(1 - x^2) M^2 = p_astro(Wesson) M^2 = 137 M^2
so that 1 - x^2 = 137^2 and

Q/M = x = sqrt(-137^2) = 137 i = 137 exp(pi/2)

and sqrt(x) = 11.7 exp(pi/4).

Since amplitudes are inherently complex, there is no problem
with them being imaginary as well as negative or positive...

I do think you can think of the electron as a Kerr-Newman black hole with a complex Compton radius where you do get a Dirac Sea electric charge density of sorts (which relates to inertial mass according to Tony Smith). The special conformal transformations specialize in handling complex spacetimes. Being the full symmetry group for Maxwell's equations, the conformal group would also handle things like superluminal group velocities through an optical medium which relates to Bloch waves.

 

[Archaea]

This idea of boundaries has far deeper implications than just physics -- in my opinion.

On an individual basis, it is the attribute that gives rise to the concept of self ... from which comes the entire gamut of problems & difficulties in our lives.

Self becomes the preoccupation ... me ... me ... me. No end. It's here, and everywhere. And all because of this individual boundary (in our physicality.)

Castaneda called for the elimination of "self-importance."
Ra speaks of the "dissolution into nothingness ... and hence unity."
Seth stresses going beyond framework 1 -- utilizing inner senses to see the whole.
The Tibetans (more complex & precise) ... refers to the "non-conceptual cognition of voidness."

But it all boils down to the same thing.

I find the C's said it best, and most elegantly: true empathy ... no more and no less than that.

I thought boundaries referred to the place between worlds. Don Juan says that the world we exist in depends on the position of our assemblage point and that when transiting between worlds the assemblage point enters a region where there's no energy filaments to construct a world out of. However, after thinking about this, I think maybe I'm constructing beliefs out of seemingly compatible information.

At any rate, I do think that physics is just an exercise for the mind for those who are particularly inclined in that direction. I don't think it's everything the mainstream science community says it is, it's just a way to play around with the world IMO.

Are there books somewhere about the Tibetans somewhere? I'm not familiar with the idea of "non-conceptual cognition of voidness.".

I do think you can think of the electron as a Kerr-Newman black hole with a complex Compton radius where you do get a Dirac Sea electric charge density of sorts (which relates to inertial mass according to Tony Smith). The special conformal transformations specialize in handling complex spacetimes. Being the full symmetry group for Maxwell's equations, the conformal group would also handle things like superluminal group velocities through an optical medium which relates to Bloch waves.

I don't know about electrons being black holes, but the idea that electrons are trapped light orbiting a point means that something generating mass has to be doing something weird. GR says that to bend light like that there must be a black hole, but the EU guys say that black holes are an error in thinking of some sort. Personally, I like the idea that the eigenstates of orbital angular momentum somehow are solutions to the EM wave equation or even some form of the Dirac equation with mass, but I really don't know.

Also what are GraviPhotons?


I made a mistake, for Uf(p) = f(p) we need a = 0, π, 2π, 3π, ... So for a = Lp/ћ = Lk, when U is a translation, we get: k = 0/L, π/L, 2π/L, 3π/L, ... Since k = 2π/λ, where λ is the wavelength, we get: λ = 2L/0, 2L/1, 2L/2, 2L/3 ... Or if a = nπ then λ = 2L/n. So according to this theory these are the wavelengths of light that will pass through a crystal with a translation of length L.

 

[John G]

Graviphotons are just the special conformal transformations (aka they handle longitudinal photons and gravitational torsion). Both Maxwell's equations and the Dirac equation have the conformal group as their maximal symmetry group.