Unification Theory draft - DFT

Welcome to ScienceForums.Net!

Welcome to ScienceForums.Net! We welcome science discussion at all levels — from beginners to researchers, covering topics from biology to computer science, and much more. Registration is fast and free, and allows you to post on the forums, so register now and join the discussions!

After you've registered, come in and introduce yourself, or visit the forum index. If you need any help registering, posting, or if you just have some questions about our site, please feel free to contact us at staff at scienceforums dot net.

Start new topics and reply to others
Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
Create a ScienceForums.Net Blog!

2 Pages
1
2
→

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

Unification Theory draft - DFT would anyone validate? Rate Topic:

#1 8 October 2011 - 12:03 PM pogono

Quark

Hello all,
here you may find article draft http://tp-theory.net/tpt_eng.pdf where I prove that:

1) light has always "c" speed for any observer and there is no ether, but...
2) photon is explained as disturbance in time-space structure, traveling through this time-space with field equations exchanging Maxwell equations
3) Schwarzschild metric is recapitulated with proper time increment related to field, that works for any field
4) I define Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics for generalized field
5) Minkowski Metric is explained as the result of keeping constant light speed for rotating reference frames

I appreciate if you validate it.

P.S. I am looking for reviewers for peer review publication. Would anyone come forward?

Regards
pogono

Posts: 14 | Joined: 05-May 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#2 8 October 2011 - 12:14 PM ajb

Physics Expert

pogono, on 8 October 2011 - 12:03 PM, said:

P.S. I am looking for reviewers for peer review publication. Would anyone come forward?

Some journals ask you to nominate the referees, most however don't. The standard thing is to use anonymous referees. The Chief Editor will usually select someone from the Editorial Board to handle your submission and they will select the referees.

"In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you" Frank Wilczek.

My homepage.

Posts: 4,446 | Joined: 04-June 06
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#3 8 October 2011 - 01:13 PM pogono

Quark

ajb, on 8 October 2011 - 12:14 PM, said:

Hi ajb.
Thank you for your response.

I have already talked to Editor (my paper was taken into peer review revision).

He asked me for my reviewer proposals (besides pointed by redaction).
That is why I ask, if someone would like to act in this role.

Regards
pogono

Posts: 14 | Joined: 05-May 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#4 8 October 2011 - 05:58 PM ajb

Physics Expert

What journal did you submit to?

"In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you" Frank Wilczek.

My homepage.

Posts: 4,446 | Joined: 04-June 06
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#5 10 October 2011 - 09:16 AM pogono

Quark

ajb, on 8 October 2011 - 05:58 PM, said:

What journal did you submit to?

I would rather not to give it for public information. The journal is present on philadelphian list, but it is not top 10.
There are many sorts of people in the Internet, and the acceptance in mainstream journal for such idea is rather fragile.

If you would like to make comments on it - tell me.
I will ask editor to send copy for your review.

P.S.
Why it is fragile?
I describe E-M wave as disturbance in time-space structure, traveling through time-space.

If you consider above for few minutes, it is obvious that:
- since we treat time-space as medium for E-M wave propagation, it must be possible to describe E-M wave as local disturbance in time-space structure.

But it is very fragile and close to ATM.

This post has been edited by pogono: 10 October 2011 - 12:44 PM

Posts: 14 | Joined: 05-May 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#6 10 October 2011 - 12:27 PM Klaynos

Insert Witty Comment

This space-time structure, are we moving through it?

I ask for the obvious reason.

Klaynos - share and enjoy.

Posts: 6,800 | Joined: 19-November 04
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#7 11 October 2011 - 07:52 AM pogono

Quark

Klaynos, on 10 October 2011 - 12:27 PM, said:

This space-time structure, are we moving through it?

I ask for the obvious reason.

Hello Klaynos.
Thanks for your voice in discussion.

Yes, the same time-space we live in.

We know already, there is no aether and E-M waves propagates in time-space.

So, time space is the medium for E-M waves.

So, we should be able then to describe E-M wave as local disturbance in time-space structure...

It is exactly the description I make in my article draft.

This post has been edited by pogono: 11 October 2011 - 09:20 AM

Posts: 14 | Joined: 05-May 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#8 11 October 2011 - 08:35 AM ajb

Physics Expert

pogono, on 11 October 2011 - 07:52 AM, said:

So, we should be able then to describe E-M wave as local disturbance in time-space structure...

Can you elaborate a little here? What do you mean by space-time structure?

"In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you" Frank Wilczek.

My homepage.

Posts: 4,446 | Joined: 04-June 06
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#9 11 October 2011 - 09:28 AM pogono

Quark

ajb, on 11 October 2011 - 08:35 AM, said:

Can you elaborate a little here? What do you mean by space-time structure?

By local time-space structure's disturbance I mean local time flow dilation.

As we know photons caries energy.
As we know from SR - increasing energy means slowing down time flow.

Photon's energy may be then understood as dislocating disturbance in time flow.

You may find exact field equations in 3.3 chapter of my article draft.
I can also post it here if you wish, but i do not know how to put here Latex equations ([tex] [/tex] tags seem they do not work).

This post has been edited by pogono: 11 October 2011 - 09:29 AM

Posts: 14 | Joined: 05-May 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#10 11 October 2011 - 10:03 AM swansont

Shaken, not Stirred

pogono, on 11 October 2011 - 09:28 AM, said:

I can also post it here if you wish, but i do not know how to put here Latex equations ([tex] [/tex] tags seem they do not work).

It's [math] and [/math]

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum

Stop failing the Turing test!

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea

To release the hounds, click the [+] sign ->

Posts: 19,636 | Joined: 04-October 03
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#11 11 October 2011 - 10:37 AM ajb

Physics Expert

pogono, on 11 October 2011 - 09:28 AM, said:

By local time-space structure's disturbance I mean local time flow dilation.

Local time flow dilation?

"In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you" Frank Wilczek.

My homepage.

Posts: 4,446 | Joined: 04-June 06
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#12 11 October 2011 - 11:10 AM pogono

Quark

ajb, on 11 October 2011 - 10:37 AM, said:

Local time flow dilation?

Yup.

Here we go:

Let us prepare to vector field description, describing at first body with Planck's mass m_p, with line velocity V_rot, on the circle with radius R.

We will define velocity using parameter $\beta$ as some function of R

$\beta=\sqrt{\frac{R_{const}}{R}}$ where R_const is some defined constant.

$v_{rot}=c\cdot \beta$

$\gamma= \frac{dt}{d\tau}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}}$

(please, notice that it is based on gamma in Schwarzschild metric. For E-M waves we will use Planck's length instead R_const).

Angular velocity for rotating body we will denote as:

$\omega=\frac{c\beta}{R}$

Non-relativistic angular momentum we may denote as:

$\vec{L}=\vec{R}\times m_P\cdot \vec{v}_{rot}$

$L=m_P\cdot Rc\beta$

Radial acceleration and its relation to relativistic force is:

$a_{\vdash}=-\vec{R}\omega^2=R\frac{d\vec{\omega} }{dt}$

$\gamma a_{\vdash}=\frac{F_{\vdash}}{m_P}$

Now, we will construct some vector fields to describe whole class of above rotations defined for any place in space. Rest mass we will treat as parameter.

Let us define at first three versors n_R, n_x, n_y. For any conductive vector R:

$\vec{n}_R=\frac{\vec{R}}{R}$

$\vec{n}_R \times \vec{n}_x = \vec{n}_y$

Let us define scalar field $\frac{c}{\gamma }$ and two related vector fields:

$\vec{A}=-\nabla\frac{c}{\gamma}\times \vec{n_y} =\frac{\gamma}{2c} \omega^2R \cdot \vec{n_x}$

$\vec{T}=\frac{c}{\gamma} \cdot \vec{n_y}$

As we can show:

$\nabla \times \vec{T} = -\vec{A}$

$\nabla \times \left ( \frac{c}{\gamma}\cdot \vec{n_y} \right )= \nabla\frac{c}{\gamma}\times \vec{n_y}$

Let us define auxiliary scalar field equal $Rc\beta$ (related to angular momentum)

and two auxiliary vector fields U and $\Omega$ .

$\vec{U}= \nabla Rc\beta \times \vec{n_x}= \frac{c\beta}{2} \cdot \vec{n_y}$

$\vec{\Omega}=\nabla \times \vec{U}$

Let us notice, that:

$R\cdot\left ( \nabla \times \vec{U} \right )=R \cdot \vec{\Omega}=\vec{v}_{rot}$

$R\cdot\left ( \nabla \times \vec{A} \right )=\vec{R}\cdot \frac{\gamma}{c}\cdot \omega^2=R\cdot \frac{\gamma}{c}\cdot \frac{d\vec{\Omega} }{dt}$

From above we derive:

$\nabla \times \vec{A} = \frac{\gamma}{c}\cdot \frac{d\left (\nabla \times \vec{U} \right )}{dt}=\frac{\gamma}{c}\frac{d \vec{\Omega}}{dt}$

$\nabla \times \vec{A} = \frac{1}{c}\frac{d \vec{\Omega}}{d\tau}$

Let us also show, that:

$\frac{1}{c}\frac{d \vec{T}}{d\tau}=\frac{\gamma}{c}\frac{d \left ( \frac{c}{\gamma} \cdot \vec{n_y} \right )}{dt}= \frac{\gamma}{c} \cdot \frac{c}{\gamma} \cdot \frac{d \left ( \vec{n_y} \right )}{dt}= \frac{d \left ( \vec{n_y} \right )}{dt}=\vec{\Omega}$

Using above we obtain:

$\nabla \times \vec{\Omega}=-\frac{1}{c}\frac{d\vec{A}}{d\tau}$

From above we derive two d'Alambertians:

$\frac{\gamma^2}{c^2}\frac{d^2\vec{\Omega}}{dt^2}-\nabla^2\vec{\Omega}=0$

$\frac{\gamma^2}{c^2}\frac{d^2\vec{A}}{dt^2}-\nabla^2\vec{A}=0$

Above d'Alambertians describe wave with line velocity $\frac{c}{\gamma }$ or – as you wish - time dilation around rotation center. But it also means, that in local time it is "c" speed.

$\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{d^2\vec{\Omega}}{d\tau^2}-\nabla^2\vec{\Omega}=0$

$\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{d^2\vec{A}}{d\tau^2}-\nabla^2\vec{A}=0$

This way we have just described local time flow dilation traveling through time-space.

P.S.
From above you may easy derive Gravitational Potential using R_schw in place of R_const. If you do it - vector "A" appears to be gravitational acceleration (with an accuracy of "c")

You may also derive Rest mass formula and photon Energy formula (using Planck's length in place of R_const) and so on...

This post has been edited by pogono: 11 October 2011 - 11:31 AM

Posts: 14 | Joined: 05-May 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#13 11 October 2011 - 12:05 PM ajb

Physics Expert

You are assuming the Schwarzschild metric as a background? If so how are you defining the cross product?

"In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you" Frank Wilczek.

My homepage.

Posts: 4,446 | Joined: 04-June 06
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#14 11 October 2011 - 12:47 PM pogono

Quark

ajb, on 11 October 2011 - 12:05 PM, said:

You are assuming the Schwarzschild metric as a background? If so how are you defining the cross product?

No, no. It is just plane Minkowski.
I have only pointed, that gamma is similar to Schwarzschild gamma factor, what will be important farther.

F.e. if we consider above field equations for central rotation with time dilation around, then we have 2 options:

- assume gravity IS just time dilation what force us to define some additional rotation in time axis for every test body (explained in 4-dimentional Lagrangian and Hamiltonian definition introduced in my article, section 4.1),
or
- we can make space-time curved and obtain regular Schwarzschild

Posts: 14 | Joined: 05-May 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#15 12 October 2011 - 10:35 AM pogono

Quark

And...?
How do you like it?

Posts: 14 | Joined: 05-May 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#16 13 October 2011 - 02:50 AM Mystery111

Atom

It's nice.

Posts: 349 | Joined: 29-August 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#17 13 October 2011 - 12:55 PM pogono

Quark

Mystery111, on 13 October 2011 - 02:50 AM, said:

It's nice.

Hmmmm.
Nice has few meanings...

Please, say if you think that it may be useful or if it is interesting point of view.
I am also looking for someone experienced as co-author. There is a lot of things to do to finish the article, as I suppose.

Posts: 14 | Joined: 05-May 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#18 13 October 2011 - 04:42 PM timo

Primate

Since you're explicitly asking for opinions that may be helpful or an interesting point of view here's mine: It's a terrific read, sounds like a random collection of sentences from the start on, and absolutely does not motivate the (potential) reader to continue with reading after the first few sentences. Just have a look at your introduction:

Quote

One of the main problems of the contemporary theoretical physics is Quantum Gravity. We also define some strong related issues such as: <whatever>

That's the first two sentences and they don't even connect to each other. Hadn't I decided to give you a reply here I had stopped reading at this point already. To make matters worse, these two sentences are followed by a quote from a text that, big surprise, also does not connect to either of the two sentences that came before it, and isn't commented in any way, either. That's the point where I stopped reading despite giving you a reply here. Skimming over the rest of the text I see a lot of formulas well known to every physicist or interested layman and simple rearrangement of equations, but little explanations. The a few random sentences I saw either contradict previous sentences or even seem awkward by themselves ("We also recall here that gravitational force is approximated by force divided by I."). I don't see how anyone would take (waste) the time to even read through all of what you wrote. You need to put much more effort into creating a proper piece of literature.

Please understand that I am not interested in spending much time on discussing your pdf or your idea; I'm not qualified to referee a proper quantum gravity paper, anyways. It would be nice if my suggestion to (drastically) improve readability is helpful for you, but I am also not offended if it seems irrelevant to you.

Forum madness is no excuse for forum rudeness (after H.J. Farnsworth)

Posts: 2,860 | Joined: 02-May 04
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#19 13 October 2011 - 08:40 PM Mystery111

Atom

pogono, on 13 October 2011 - 12:55 PM, said:

Nice in the sense that it is very clear you have put a lot of work into this.

I haven't spotted a mistake, but then again, I am never the best person to ask for spotting mistakes!

I struggle slightly following your intentions and I am under the impression many of the equations you write are standard. That is my take, and I hope you take it as a kind critique.

Maybe it's just me most of the time.... sentances like ''zero-dimension'' as being ''time'' seems like an Oxmoron to me, as time is a dimension.

Posts: 349 | Joined: 29-August 11
Back to top of the page up there ^
MultiQuote
Reply

#20 30 December 2011 - 11:01 PM pogono

Quark

Mystery111, on 13 October 2011 - 08:40 PM, said:

Nice in the sense that it is very clear you have put a lot of work into this.

Yup, and now even more ;-)

Revised version updated at: http://tp-theory.net/tpt_eng.pdf

How do you like it?
You will be shocked, what comes out from my Rindler transformation (formulas 15-25)

I appreciate any comment.

LaTeX Code

Science Forums: Unification Theory draft - DFT - Science Forums

Welcome to ScienceForums.Net!

Unification Theory draft - DFT would anyone validate? Rate Topic:

#1 8 October 2011 - 12:03 PM pogono

#2 8 October 2011 - 12:14 PM ajb

#3 8 October 2011 - 01:13 PM pogono

#4 8 October 2011 - 05:58 PM ajb

#5 10 October 2011 - 09:16 AM pogono

#6 10 October 2011 - 12:27 PM Klaynos

#7 11 October 2011 - 07:52 AM pogono

#8 11 October 2011 - 08:35 AM ajb

#9 11 October 2011 - 09:28 AM pogono

#10 11 October 2011 - 10:03 AM swansont

#11 11 October 2011 - 10:37 AM ajb

#12 11 October 2011 - 11:10 AM pogono

#13 11 October 2011 - 12:05 PM ajb

#14 11 October 2011 - 12:47 PM pogono

#15 12 October 2011 - 10:35 AM pogono

#16 13 October 2011 - 02:50 AM Mystery111

#17 13 October 2011 - 12:55 PM pogono

#18 13 October 2011 - 04:42 PM timo

#19 13 October 2011 - 08:40 PM Mystery111

#20 30 December 2011 - 11:01 PM pogono

Share this topic:

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Delete Post

Skin and Language

Execution Stats

LaTeX Code

Science Forums: Unification Theory draft - DFT - Science Forums

Welcome to ScienceForums.Net!

#1 8 October 2011 - 12:03 PM pogono

#2 8 October 2011 - 12:14 PM ajb

#3 8 October 2011 - 01:13 PM pogono

#4 8 October 2011 - 05:58 PM ajb

#5 10 October 2011 - 09:16 AM pogono

#6 10 October 2011 - 12:27 PM Klaynos

#7 11 October 2011 - 07:52 AM pogono

#8 11 October 2011 - 08:35 AM ajb

#9 11 October 2011 - 09:28 AM pogono

#10 11 October 2011 - 10:03 AM swansont

#11 11 October 2011 - 10:37 AM ajb

#12 11 October 2011 - 11:10 AM pogono

#13 11 October 2011 - 12:05 PM ajb

#14 11 October 2011 - 12:47 PM pogono

#15 12 October 2011 - 10:35 AM pogono

#16 13 October 2011 - 02:50 AM Mystery111

#17 13 October 2011 - 12:55 PM pogono

#18 13 October 2011 - 04:42 PM timo

#19 13 October 2011 - 08:40 PM Mystery111

#20 30 December 2011 - 11:01 PM pogono

Share this topic:

1 User(s) are reading this topic 0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Delete Post

Skin and Language

Execution Stats

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users