13 years, 11 months ago
Alia iacta est
Steven Colbert is a man of vision..>:)
As you know, he was supporting me at my first blog. Pretty soon, I will pay him back with the release of my book below and a brief homage..:) I hope you like the icon associated with the theory and book.
You should have no trouble recognizing the paradigm of The Flying Orchestra representing our lightspeed expanding hyperspherical Universe with their singing dilators...:) (you and me included in the chorus)...:) The two eyes are the two cross-sections of the Hypergeometrical Universe, and the side adornments are the two phases of the fundamental dilator representing the proton and electron, thus summarizing the theory in a single picture.
The smile is mine...:)
The Hypergeometrical Standard Model, replaces the millenia old concept of particles (atoms) by the concept of fundamental dilators or 4D deformation coherences. Using a single four note coherence (fundamental dilator), I was able to replicate all "particles", "isotopes" by a series of coherences. Those coherences provided a alternative model for the quark mess associated with the Standard Model. This is very important.
Currently, gazillion mathematicians (I wouldn't go far and call them Physicists) are searching algebrae capable of replicating the symmetries imposed by their current view of Nature's Forces. Well, since the so called Quarks can never be isolated, someone had to create a force that increases with distance squared, the archetypical never saturating harmonic oscillator. On the other hand, all the other forces decrease with the inverse of distance squared.
This imposes another symmetry to the Universe Hamiltonian. It has to be reciprocally symmetric, that is, one should be able to replace r by 1/r and I suppose speediness with slowness and get the same Hamiltionian (or Lagrangian or whatever technique one wants to use).
Books, gazillion papers have been written to comply with this symmetry requirement.
What would be the effect if one tries to write a simple paper like mine proposing an equally satisfying theory that does not have that symmetry and explains nuclear energy without a gluonic potential?
My theory, replaces "particles" , providing a interaction without poles, one that depends not upon distance, but instead it depends upon number of wavelenght cycles- a quantized dependency supported by the Quantum Lagrangian Principle and the Pseudo Time Quantization.
It is a departure from distance square...you know. I don't even speak the same language as the others...:)
I challenged the concept of Field. Well, not really, what I challenged is that implicit in the concept of field is the concept of a macroscopic (Cosmological) coherence. The concept of field (together with the concept of the Fundamental Dilator)and its succesfully usage is the obvious support to the Quantum Lagrangian Principle.
Of course, I also challenged Einstein by bringing back the absolutism of time and space in the 5D spacetime while keeping the relativism on the 4D spacetime. I placed the whole Universe traveling at the speed of light...:) along the radial direction...:) That is a kick in the pants..:)My impression is that, that theory is doomed. It simply cannot be published, after all how Science will protect itself from ideological (derived from ideas) anarchy...>:)
I am guilty as charged.
Yesterday, I had to restate that IDEAS ARE IMPORTANT. Today, I still believe it. I also believe that as in any other revolution, people will have to take positions. Sitting on the fence will not do.
Yesterday, I also had to restate my genuine appreciation of other people's skills. Despite of myself refusing to call a mathematician a physicist in a paragraph above, I don't consider the mathematical models less important. They just work better with some physical insight. We all have to get along and work together...:)
Yesterday, I was also asked point blank if I believe I am better than Einstein....:) This is a tricky question. It would be easier to answer if you compare me with Einstein while he was sitting in the Patent Office without any of his ideas published. Had I answered yes under those conditions, there would not be any disagreement. The question of achievements comes into play as soon as Einstein's ideas are published. At that crucial point, life takes a turn. His ideas take life and defend themselves and Einstein's reputation.
Challenged, I had to answer Yes, based simply in the fact that I believe I succeeded where he failed - that is just one measure of quality.... I haven't been given the opportunity to give life to my ideas (through low key censorship). By the way, this wasn't a friendly question. It was a question that if I were to answer no, the conclusion would be that I would be wasting time pushing forward a theory that even Einstein wasn't able to figure out. In summary, the questioner was trying to make me conclude that I couldn't possibly be right, since I am no Einstein...:)
I don't need to remind the people who really knows the history of science, that even Einstein was no Einstein after 1905. He lagged behind and rejected Quantum Mechanics. I am sure Dirac, Schrodinger, Fermi etc didn't see Einstein with the same lustre we see him now. Everyone has some skills, insights and one shouldn't be hold back by silly comparisons...
This is a simple argument that I were to answer : "No, I am no Einstein" - then one has to conclude that I couldn't succeed where Einstein failed. That is a fallacy, different people have different insights, life experiences, ideas exposure etc. This argument has been brought up remarkably many times. I sure Einstein heard "You are no Gauss"... or "You are no Lorentz"..:)I have to say that I share some of his perseverance and the difficulties he faced in his time. (not the WWII but lack of support , censorship... petty, small people...:) On the other hand, at his time it was even clearer why IDEAS ARE IMPORTANT.
That said, I have to complement the answer and state that different people will have different insights, skills and that is what makes the knowledge growth of mankind so fruitful. Einstein looked into God's Mind to seek knowledge. I looked into great scientist's minds for guidance - including his. I sought to find out which hidden hypotheses where not perceived by the great men who preceded me.
Gauss fields had implicit a Cosmological Coherence, Time Quantization.
Gauss' and Biot-Savart laws provided me with a simple way to replicate Maxwell's equations without have to unnecessarily formalize my theory. I didn't want to introduce spurious concepts at this stage. Potential vectors, electric fields are unnecessary. The basic physics is what happens to a charge when the other charge moves or stays still. Everything else is a simple formalization of that dynamics. I am sure this statement will put me at odds with the Gauge Theorists...:)
From Einstein and Lorentz, I learned the value of the Lorentz transformation, metric modulations (gravitational waves). Einstein also gave a lot of headaches by his proposal of the twin paradox. I solved the riddle of time on my blog The Passage of Time. I couldn't had done it if the paradox didn't exist and hadn't brought up by Einstein.
From Mach, I realized that non-local interaction explanation for inertia was wrong (unnecessary). Even when one disagrees with a predecessor, it doesn't diminishes the value of the predecessor's pondering. The most difficult task in science is to find out which questions to ask.
Ideas are not only important (I am not), but also they have a life of their own.. once people understand my theory, it will have a life of its own and I will move on into another project.
Below is the last task of this effort, this together with a few Blog interviews. Bloggers are finally catching up with the relevance of censorship in the physics environment. From the orthodox point of view, the more innovative an idea is the harsher the censorship should be. By that measure, I am doing fine.
I will be publishing "The Flying Orchestra" soon. I hope I can count on your strident support or dissent...:) Either way, my work would be done.
By the end of this odyssey, Egg will be in the face of Ginsparg, unless there is such a thing as reciprocal symmetry and them it would be on mine...:)
ps- Don't forget to view my theory latest version and to visit my blog on the Mismanagement of at Cornell-Los Alamos Arxives
I had the pleasure to notice my colleagues from Ithaca visiting my site. The site is open to comments. Anyone can submit anonymous dissenting, challenges, or supportive comment to the theory. I will keep the identity of all dissenting opinionators private, thus Paul Ginsparg can be free to bash the theory as much as he wants.:)
Share on Facebook
Well, that said, bashing wasn't my goal. As in any theory, one hopes for intelligent, constructive dissenting opinions, but if I get bashing, I will have to be happy with it... One has to play the hand one is dealt with...:) Alia iacta est...:)