NP Rank:
Convention vs Un-convention
The following is a list of topics/phenomena as explained by conventional vs unconventional physics. i will try to keep it up to date as theory evolves. If any reader notices a logical inconsistency under "U:" or misrepresentation of "C:", plz don't hesitate to comment / write to me directly.
self-interference
C: caused by inherent randomness of quantum particles; sometimes, some possible state-trajectories cancel or interfere effectively destroying a quantum particle; a good indicator of possible self-interference is when a quantum system of many particles exhibits an interference pattern
U: caused by the spacelet nature of quantum particles; spacelet is short for spacetime wavelet; wavelet theory shows individual wavelets can self-interfere much like quantum particles
strong force
C: mediated by gluons, which are a kind of virtual boson, exchanged by quarks inside a nucleus
U: short-range temporal curvature
weak force / nuclear decay
C: mediated by W/Z-bosons; the Feynman diagram for an isolated neutron shows a W-boson as a kind of intermediate decay product producing an electron and anti-neutrino; the idea is consistent with: all forces are mediated by some kind of virtual particle
U: geometry, vibration, and rotation of nucleons
gravity
C: gravitons, a hypothetical particle consistent with concepts above
U: long-range temporal curvature
special relativity
C: consider parallel plates with a particle bouncing between them, this represents a kind of clock; if we move those plates in a direction parallel to the plates, the path length becomes longer effectively lengthening the period of the clock; time effectively slows down for moving clocks relative to stationary clocks
U: enhanced temporal curvature
gravitational time dilation
C: general relativity predicts spacetime curves near massive objects; time slows down with respect to how massive the object is and how close a clock is to that object
U: temporal relativity considers temporal curvature making TR more fundamental and simpler than GR (one dimension vs four); enhanced temporal curvature
mass
C: virtual exchange of the Higgs boson from a particle to itself
U: temporal curvature corresponding to a spacelet
spin
C: a quantum property that does not have a one-to-one macroscopic analogy; if we try to think of quantum spin as analogous to macroscopic spin, the analogy breaks down immediately; it can have orientation, magnitude, excited states, but exists as a quantum property much like self-interference
U: spacelet theory, only just emerging as a fledgeling science, looks at quantum particles as charged spacetime wavelets; these 3D distortions in spacetime may resemble screw dislocations in a solid; Markus Lazar has pursued this tack
electromagnetism
C: virtual photon exchange
U: charged anti-photons; the concept of 'the antiphoton' was arrived at considering a balanced curvature scheme of cosmology and needing something real to mediate e-m
alpha / the fine structure constant
C: "well, it's a mystery"
U: relates to the local density of charged anti-photons; in a balanced curvature scenario, every time a photon is created, so is an anti-photon; every time a photon is absorbed, so is an anti-photon; so, near nuclear reactors (stars) and fission reactors (on Earth) where photons are produced, an equal number of anti-photons are produced and so alpha should be measurably different there; this is a critical test of the unconventional theory
proton/electron mass ratio
C: "well, that's a mystery too"; the latest conventional guess is that from string theory, there's an infinity of universes coexisting with ours; ours happens to reside in the small fraction of life supporting universes with the mass ratio just right; personally, i see this as equivalent to the anthropic principle - really no answer at all
U: life, as we know it, would not exist without carbon based chemistry; we propose a Prime Cause engineered our universe to support life; the ratio was engineered
particle zoo
C: the Standard Model proposes a very short list of 'elementary particles' and bosons; the zoo can be explained as a logical combination of those
U: "i'm not particularly interested in unstable particles."
CMB/GWB - the cosmic microwave background / gravitational wave background
C: the big bang or colliding branes
U: the Prime Cause exploding a singularity or maybe smashing two
CMB power spectrum / anisotropies
C: there exist very slight directional variations in the CMB; these correspond to a power spectrum of relic microwave energy; convention explains these with inflation or colliding branes, depending on your camp
U: "still working on it"
dark matter
C: required to keep galaxies together and explain dark flow, it's the conventionally proposed stuff that only interacts with 'normal baryonic matter' gravitationally; not yet detected but required by conventional cosmology to 'make things work'
U: "um, i'll get back to you"; in unconventional particle schemes, a very massive neutral particle should have charged counterparts - these should be detectable
dark energy
C: required by convention to accelerate the expansion of the universe (something we measure); it makes up the bulk of stuff; as with dark matter, we don't know what the hell it is
U: following a balanced curvature cosmology, equal amounts of matter/antimatter and photons/anti-photons were produced at creation; the primordial antimatter is not gravitationally bound to 'our normal matter'; charged anti-photons would be attracted to normal matter and may explain e-m; neutral anti-photons produced gradually in stars since the BB may contribute to accelerated expansion - just a guess
the arrow of time
C: convention's best guess goes something like this: quantum gravity is a fledgling science; study of information processes relating to black holes indicate a 'holographic principle'; information may be stored on a boundary similar to a hologram; if we live in a holographic universe, information may stored on the boundary; there may be 'holographic noise' which is detectable; at Fermilab, they're building a detector which should point one way or the other: we live in a holographic universe or 'classical spacetime'; the arrow of time could be a similar construct
U: we need time to discriminate between events; if time did not exist, events would be indistinguishable / happen all at once; if time was reversible, if time travel was possible, causality would be violated and all evil deeds performed throughout history would have been reversed by altruistic future time-travelers; this has clearly not happened; causality cannot be violated; time cannot be reversed; time travel is impossible
antimatter
C: Dirac proposed antiparticles 'travel backward in time', but very little is known about antimatter except for the fact when you bring a matter particle near to its antimatter counterpart, mutual annihilation occurs; in the heart of the LHC, the large hadron collider, protons at high speed are smashed with oppositely traveling antiprotons; decay products have 'confirmed' W/Z bosons with remarkable accuracy/confidence; but not one Higgs..
U: antimatter has negative curvature which cannot aggregate gravitationally; unconventional physics proposes antimatter does not travel backward in time; time passage near antimatter merely speeds up relative to flat spacetime/time
antiphotons
C: "say what?"
U: mediate electromagnetism
God
C: is neutral about God; i've seen theoretical physicists declare both ways: some see intelligent design in our cosmos; others see none
U: presently, i have no better explanation of: proton/electron mass ratio, the claims of inflation, DNA, the anticipated ubiquity of life, or the stability of proton, electron, and various nuclei; i have no historical antipathy toward the concept as conventional physics does
multi-dimensions
C: string theory seems to require at least seven extra spatial dimensions to 'make the theory work'; there is some conventional reluctance but support is growing
U: using Occam's Razor, the simplest deterministic framework developed requires three spatial dimensions, one curvable time dimension, and one extra dimension for that time dimension to 'curve into': 5D. 5 vs 11, dimensionally speaking, un-convention wins
integration/unification
C: the Standard Model has been called 'the ugliest theory in the history of science' by conventional theorists; because it has been developed by many people over many decades, the theory is necessarily haphazard, disjoint, inelegant, and counter-intuitive; arguably, if schools/universities taught physics concepts better, the Standard Model and all of its conventional extensions might be more intuitively understandable; there are so many arbitrary parameters and problems such as renormalization which make it repugnant to even conventional theoreticians; no one seriously believes it's the 'answer' to "how does the universe work?"
U: because the theory was basically developed by one inspired person (me), unconventional theoretical physics (this 'brand') is more coherent, elegant, simple, unified, and intuitively appealing; it answers the question of force unification by properties of time; 'the impedance of space' can be associated with time alone, the property of spacetime which determines the interval between electromagnetic events; curvature, likewise, the property of spacetime which determines the interval between mechanical events; temporal relativity replaces GR as the most fundamental classical theory; spacelet theory redefines quantum particles as spacetime wavelets capable of self-interference explicitly because of their wavelet nature; admittedly, dependency on the Prime Cause for: stability of proton/electron, mass ratio, and 'inflation effects' makes this investigator a bit uneasy .. but isn't that what Spouses are for? ^^ ;)



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (1)
at 17:49 on June 28th, 2011
What I see is mathematicians, cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and others not looking in all the right places. If they want the answers to life, essence, existence, and the universe, they need to look in all those places. Just defining, hypothesizing, or theorising physical properties in the universe will never answer all those questions completely or accurately.
1