An Exploration of Physics Logicweet

Physics is by consensus! In gravitational theories we have three accords, Relativity, Strings & Quantum (RSQ) theories. Like a board of directors, the physics community, based on empirical evidence, agree to disagree on how Nature works. Nature, herself, has only one vote, and it is a veto.

The gravitational constant G is the one thing that Einstein inherited from Newton and my discovery of the massless equation g=tau.c^2 replaces G with the more fundamental constant c, the velocity of light. Therefore, G is not a fundamental constant but some function of structure that we don't fully understand.

However, our assumptions or axioms about the physical world affect or are affected by what we perceive as structure.

Over the last 16 years researching the new physics, I found myself arguing both sides of the coin! Holding dichotomies in my head. Polychotomies? Wondering where the truth lay? Was there was one? Were there many?

Our two most fundamental, implicit, unwritten, unthought, physics assumptions are (1) there has always been some form of order in the Universe at least since the beginning of time, and (2) that this order can be written down in mathematical form.

What if both of these assumptions were wrong? Prior to the Big Bang, was there unmathematical disorder? How then, did order come to be? Do we observe the coming of order as the Big Bang? How is it that this order can be described in mathematical form? Or does a part of the Universe that cannot be described in mathematical form, still exists?

I don't know.

I found out that if we dig deep enough we will find that everything we know is wrong. Einstein replaced Newton. Newton replaced Galileo, Kepler & Tycho Brahe, who in turn replaced some of the then contemporary church teachings, who were influenced by Ptolemy (Earth is center of Universe). And of course Dr Zefram Cochrane will replace Einstein.

Even worse. I found out that matters could be worse.

Herman Bondi who first proposed negative mass (aka exotic matter) in his 1957 paper, "Negative Mass in General Relativity" made the implicit assumption that mass was not related to any other property within the particle. Whereas Higgs Boson requires the implicit assumption that a particle's mass is created by properties external to the particle. How odd? How many Higgs bosons are there in the Universe, to support at least 10^100+ atoms? Like the three RSQ theories, if we had an alternative mechanism for mass, could we observe it, too?

Older theories on wormholes are based on matter, positive mass matter. Over the decades, to advance this field, physicist migrated to exotic matter as the origin of wormholes. Exotic matter is matter with negative mass and causes repulsion per Bondi. In my 2013 paper I showed that exotic matter could not exists as it leads to perpetual motion machines and the possibility of creating energy out of nothing. Unless of course you believe that there is a part of the Universe that cannot be described in mathematical form . . .

I was very pleased with this discovery, the perpetual motion part, and went on to figure which part of matter is it, that causes gravitational fields. You see, it is easy to say "mass", and then ignore the necessary testing and clarification of which part of matter is mass a proxy of, if at all? Protons, quarks, nuclear-electron shell interactions? Which? And, what experiments are required to confirm or deny this hypothesis?

On Earth, the accepted value for gravitational constant G is 6.67259x10^-11 (ignoring units). Using a combination of analytical and numerical methods I proved that G is not a constant (see Super Physics for Super Technologies). It is a variable that is dependent inversely on the atomic number of the isotope. For example, that of Hydrogen and Helium are 1.777957x10^-9 and 4.441839x10^-10, respectively, and Gdecreases with atomic number.

One interpretation is that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion. Some form of nucleosynthesis increased the nuclear atomic number, thus decreasing G. This reduced the gravitational field strength and caused expansion of the Universe.

I showed that if, within the nucleus, protons and neutrons break up into their constituent quarks, gravitational fields are caused by their circular motion. Or gravitational fields are due to quark motion, not mass. Thus, mass is a proxy for the amount of this quark motion. If you haven't noticed by now, the isotopic variability ofG messes up everything we know about cosmology, but don't tell the cosmologists or the astrophysicists.

Okay, it gets worse.

Didn't I just say that negative mass could not exists? If gravitational fields are caused by circular quark motion, then it does not matter either the direction the quarks are moving, or if their mass is positive or negative, the gravitational field will always be attractive.

So negative mass could exists!

But in this manner, only gravitational attraction is allowed, and perpetual motion machines cannot be constructed. Therefore, exotic matter cannot be used as an opposite of normal matter as it reverses the momentum exchange behavior but all matter exhibits attractive gravitational fields. This suggests that the sign of mass is equivalent to a 180 degree phase shift, if mass were a wave function.

So the validity of negative mass has been reversed.

But wait a minute. If mass were a wave function, then its sign would be a phase shift. That is, negative mass is the same as positive mass, and it does not exists.

And reversed this validity, again.

So where is the truth? It is in the deeper underlying intrinsic structure of the particle. As observed in our Universe, the theoretical model for mass cannot allow for its negative, and rethinking Bondi's implicit assumption, a property related to particle structure.

Professors Steinhardt and Efstathiou, in their Kavli Institute video blog, and Professors Lykken and Spiropulu in their May 2014 Scientific American "A Crisis in Physics?" point to the real risk that their empirical data no longer supports their theories. They have suggested approaches to resolving these risks.

Having decoupled mass from gravitational fields, what is the truth? Could any theory on Nature be proved correct? We already have three, Relativity, String and Quantum theories. Given these three, other than Higgs Boson, is there an alternative explanation for mass that is intrinsic not extrinsic to the particle?

3 Comments

Sort by 

Top

Add a comment...

Toby Chapman · 

The University of British Columbia (UBC)

Physics has needed to released from the tyranny of math for some time. I think it's gone astray because of math. Math can be predictive but it doesn't itself explain anything. It can be however psychologically compelling, which leads to fallacies. 

Just because the math is right doesn't mean the theory behind the math is right, take Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. What it actually, literally shows is the limits on one particular way of measuring things. 

However, Heisenberg went beyond that. He decided that the meaning of his calculation was that there was no literal truth as to the the speed or location of particles. He discovered nothing of the sort, that was just the discredited philosophy of instrumentalism stapled to something else.

Like · Reply · Aug 19, 2015 9:56pm

Daniel Pryor · 

Works at Université catholique de Louvain

"Physics has needed to released [sic] from the tyranny of math for some time." Yeah, and creative writing needs to be released from the tyranny of words. Sarcasm aside, math is the language of physics. Please stop talking about things you have no knowledge of.

Like · Reply · 23 hrs

Benjamin Solomon · 

Blogger (Independent Contractor) at Huffington.

Daniel Pryor I am verry sorry you missed the subtleties of Tony Chapman's point. I should add when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. You should take your own advice.

Like · Reply · 20 hrs

Benjamin Solomon · 

Blogger (Independent Contractor) at Huffington.

Tony Chapman, yes, as the late Prof of Mathematics, Dr Morris Kline said in his book "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty", that mathematics has become so sophisticated it can be used to prove anything. What we lack is experimental rigor.

Therefore, proving something mathematically, does not mean it is correct, as illustrated by my article.

Like · Reply · 19 hrs

Michael J. Milberg · 

Lawrence High School (New Jersey)

As I've understand it, gravity is the curvature of space-time produced by matter, the result of which manifests as a seeming attraction of matter to other matter. 
If that is the case then it seems we ought to look at the nature of what matter actually is to understand how the space-time curvature which produces the effects we call gravity is produced by that nature. 
Relativity tells us that at its base matter is essentialy highly compressed energy, which has been proven empirically as much as its likely to be. 
Quantum physics seeks to explain the properties of matter through reductionism, t...See More

Like · Reply · 7 hrs

Benjamin Solomon · 

Blogger (Independent Contractor) at Huffington.

Michael J. Milberg, the short answer is that we don't know what mass is, and to be honest, we haven't figured out why particles exist.

It is one thing to say that mass is derived from an external something, and quite another to say that the value of mass is affected by an external something. 

That is why I asked the question, how many Higgs Bosons are there in the Universe to give mass to 10^100+ atoms? Say 10^99? If that were the case then under the right conditions we should see thousands if not millions of Higgs Bosons, but CERN just barely found 1(?).

Gravity is a field, and in Nature is supposedly caused by mass. By decoupled I meant that the field that causes the acceleration does not have mass in the equation as its origin. Therefore, gravity, in theory could be caused by something else. A very important criterion for future propulsion technologies.

Like · Reply · 4 hrs

Carey Carlson · 

Works at Self-Employed

In response to Mr. Solomon's concluding question, there is a recent explanation for mass that is intrinsic to particles. Using the arrow diagrams of causal set theory, the common particles have been constructed graphically. One notices that arrow diagrams, depicting patterns of temporal succession, form inherent frequency ratios, serving to define energy ratios in accord with E=hf. The causal link, or step of temporal succession, is thereby identified as the quantum of energy. Thus, the particles constructed using arrow diagrams have intrinsic energy by virtue of their constituent quanta. ...See More

Like · Reply · 8 hrs

Benjamin Solomon · 

Blogger (Independent Contractor) at Huffington.

Thanks Carey Carlson.

Like · Reply · 4 hrs

In logic, a many-valued logic (also multi- or multiple-valued logic) is a propositional calculus in which there are more than two truth values. Traditionally, in Aristotle's logical calculus, there were only two possible values (i.e., "true" and "false") for any proposition. Classical two-valued logic may be extended to n-valued logic for n greater than 2. Those most popular in the literature are three-valued (e.g., Łukasiewicz's and Kleene's, which accept the values "true", "false", and "unknown"), the finite-valued (finitely-many valued) with more than three values, and the infinite-valued (infinitely-many valued), such as fuzzy logic and probability logic.

History[edit]

The first known classical logician who didn't fully accept the law of excluded middle was Aristotle (who, ironically, is also generally considered to be the first classical logician and the "father of logic"^[1]). Aristotle admitted that his laws did not all apply to future events (De Interpretatione, ch. IX), but he didn't create a system of multi-valued logic to explain this isolated remark. Until the coming of the 20th century, later logicians followed Aristotelian logic, which includes or assumes the law of the excluded middle.

The 20th century brought back the idea of multi-valued logic. The Polish logician and philosopher Jan Łukasiewicz began to create systems of many-valued logic in 1920, using a third value, "possible", to deal with Aristotle's paradox of the sea battle. Meanwhile, the American mathematician, Emil L. Post (1921), also introduced the formulation of additional truth degrees with n ≥ 2, where n are the truth values. Later, Jan Łukasiewicz and Alfred Tarski together formulated a logic on n truth values where n ≥ 2. In 1932 Hans Reichenbach formulated a logic of many truth values where n→infinity. Kurt Gödel in 1932 showed that intuitionistic logic is not a finitely-many valued logic, and defined a system of Gödel logics intermediate between classical and intuitionistic logic; such logics are known as intermediate logics.

Examples[edit]

Main articles: Three-valued logic and Four-valued logic

Kleene (strong) K₃ and Priest logic P₃[edit]

Kleene's "(strong) logic of indeterminacy" K₃ (sometimes ) and Priest's "logic of paradox" add a third "undefined" or "indeterminate" truth value I. The truth functions for negation (¬), conjunction (∧), disjunction (∨), implication (→_K), and biconditional (↔_K) are given by:^[2]

¬   T F I I F T

∧ T I F T T I F I I I F F F F F

∨ T I F T T T T I T I I F T I F

→K T I F T T I F I T I I F T T T

↔K T I F T T I F I I I I F F I T

The difference between the two logics lies in how tautologies are defined. In K₃ only T is a designated truth value, while in P₃ both T and I are (a logical formula is considered a tautology if it evaluates to a designated truth value). In Kleene's logic I can be interpreted as being "underdetermined", being neither true nor false, while in Priest's logic I can be interpreted as being "overdetermined", being both true and false. K₃ does not have any tautologies, while P₃ has the same tautologies as classical two-valued logic.^{[citation needed]}

Bochvar's internal three-valued logic (also known as Kleene's weak three-valued logic)[edit]

Another logic is Bochvar's "internal" three-valued logic () also called Kleene's weak three-valued logic. Except for negation and biconditional, its truth tables are all different from the above.^[3]

∧+ T I F T T I F I I I I F F I F

∨+ T I F T T I T I I I I F T I F

→+ T I F T T I F I I I I F T I T

The intermediate truth value in Bochvar's "internal" logic can be described as "contagious" because it propagates in a formula regardless of the value of any other variable.^[4]

Belnap logic (B₄)[edit]

Belnap's logic B₄ combines K₃ and P₃. The overdetermined truth value is here denoted as B and the underdetermined truth value as N.

f¬   T F B B N N F T

f∧ T B N F T T B N F B B B F F N N F N F F F F F F

f∨ T B N F T T T T T B T B T B N T T N N F T B N F