Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Road to Reality

The vacuum is full of 'virtual' particles - particles that we feel only as forces such as inertial resistance to acceleration, nuclear confinement of charged particles, electromagnetism and gravity.

Aound any particle core some of these particles will be attracted, forming a polarised veil which acts like a dielectric, shielding the charge of the core. Electron cores tend to attract virtual positrons, leaving behind an outer zone of virtual electrons. This shields the real electron core charge by a factor of 137, the 'magic number' of QED. For the massive quarks, you get virtual quark pairs polarising around them. This limits the range of the colour charge of quantum chromodynamics. Gravity is just the shielding of a background pressure of the virtual particles in the vacuum. Because all energy has speed c, as per Einstein's E=mc^2, gravity goes at c.

We can visualise an emerging unified force as a progressive shielding effect by the polarised vacuum on the particle core. The strong nuclear force is the basic force, and gets progressively filtered down by the polarised virtual charges of the vacuum around the particle core until we get through electromagnetism, weak force, and finally gravity. No extra dimensions!

Dr Peter Woit has very interesting ideas on the problem of the actual particles themselves (I'm sticking to forces at present): http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0206135


At 11:59 PM, Blogger nige said...

I've actually been arguing with Catt to correct all types of oversimplification and thus error in his theory for a decade, with zero success. However, this is his right. He could do more for science by regularly "backing off and reformulating" his theory when errors arise, instead of taking Einstein's advice to heretics to "be stubborn". Catt has all sorts of beliefs about things, like Occam's (now spelt Ockham's) razor. This is an arbitarary knife anyone can use for any purpose, since there is no agreed-upon definition of "simplicity".

Catt uses it to defend models so simple that for most purposes they are just plain wrong. However, as I've repeatedly said, the deeper hidden meaning of Catt's model is that the spin of a stationary electron is light speed, so it transmits a pulse at light speed, and is in equilibrium with energy transfer and reception along electric field lines. The electrons on the side of the wires facing the other conductor will carry energy at the speed of light for the insulator between the wires, while the electrons on the sides of wires furthest from the other conductor will presumably carry energy at the speed of light in the air or whatever is on that side.

Catt has difficulties not only with electroscopes but with any single conductor situation like a radio aerial. I keep explaining that a radio transmitter aerial and receiver aerial are two parallel single conductors, and because energy transfer between them occurs when there is a change of current flow, di/dt, in the transmitter - and has a light speed lag - we can consider the usual force mechanism (repulsion and attraction between parallel conductors carrying currents) to be momentum from energy exchange along electric field lines.

Classically, the spinning electron should radiate energy. The disaster was that people came up with orbit ideas before spin ideas. With orbit you have a definite frequency, because the electron orbits the nucleus a given number of times per second. But with spin, there is no physical oscillation because the thing smoothly spins around. The radiated energy does not have a frequency spectrum governed by the classical Maxwellian EM theory, it has zero frequency. It is a non-oscillatory energy release. The electron receives as much back from other electrons in the universe as it emits. When you interrupt this exchange, by shielding with an opposite charge for example, then you get a net force which you feel.

Basically what you are saying is no more than "Catt is like Copernicus. Copernicus was wrong because he used circular orbits with epicycles when he should have used ellipses as Kepler did. There is no value in Copernicus because he is plain wrong. Kostler in 1959 showed that Copernicus' model uses twice as many epicycles as Ptolemy's earth centred universe. Therefore, it was a mistake to allow Copernicus' model to have gone unchallenged. It should have been completely suppressed because it was plain wrong in almost all details. The world would be a better place today if it had been suppressed and we were still using Ptolemy's earth-centred universe."


Post a Comment

<< Home