The origin of gravitation, the origin of electric charge and the fundamental structure of physical reality are resolved, but these facts are not yet added to common knowledge. Also the structure of photons is resolved and the begin of the universe is explained. A proper definition of what a field is and how a field behaves have been given. These facts are explained in Preprint A SELF-CREATING MODEL OF PHYSICAL REALITY
.This model still leaves some open questions. The model does not explain the role of massive bosons. It does not explain the existence of generations of fermions. The HBM also does not provide an explanation for the fine details of the emission and absorption of photons. The model does not give a reason for the existence of the stochastic processes that generate the hopping paths of elementary particles. The model does not explain in detail how color confinement works. It also does not explain how neutral elementary particles can produce deformation. The referenced booklet treats many of its open questions in sections that carry this title.
The model suggests that we live in a purely mathematical model. This raises deep philosophical questions.
With other words, the Hilbert Book Model Project is far from complete. The target of the project was not to deliver a theory of everything. Its target was to dive deeper into the crypts of physical reality and to correct flaws that got adapted into accepted physical theories. Examples of these flaws are the Big Bang theory, the explanation of black holes, the description of the structure of photons, and the description of the binding of elementary particles into higher order modules.
The biggest discovery of the HBM project is the fact that it appears possible to generate a self-creating model of physical reality that after a series of steps shows astonishing resemblance to the structure and the behavior of observed physical reality.
A major result is also that all elementary particles and their conglomerates are recurrently regenerated at a very fast rate. This means that apart from black holes, all massive objects are continuously regenerated. This conclusion attacks the roots of all currently accepted physical theories. Another result is that the generation and binding of all massive particles are controlled by stochastic processes that own a characteristic function. Consequently the Hilbert Book Model does not rely on weak and strong forces that current field theories apply.
The HBM explains gravity at the level of quantum physics and thus bridges the gap between quantum theory and current gravitation theories.
The Hilbert Book Model shows that mathematicians can play a crucial role in the further development of theoretical physics. The HBM hardly affects applied physics. It does not change much in the way that observations of physical phenomena will be described.
The origin of gravitation is understood-that's what general relativity is abput.
The electric charge is understood, too, as part of the Standard Model.
The Standard Model, indeed, along with general relativity, describes what is ``physical reality''-in qualitative and quantitative detail. Of course it"s an incomplete description, since the way the electroweak scale is stabilized isn't known.
What's, also, not yet understood is how quantum properties of matter affect spacetime.
There's no meaning to the statement of living in a mathematical model; Mathematics is just the language that's useful for describing nature.
Dear Hans,
"The origin of gravitation, the origin of electric charge and the fundamental structure of physical reality are resolved"
No, it is not resolved.
The cause of gravity is explained by relativity, but you cannot create gravity or antigravity from nothing, the same goes for electric charges.
I also remind you that there is a large part of the universe, dark energy-matter that is not known to what it is
I also remind you that the standard model has never managed to predict anything, that it was "patched" every time something new is discovered
Did someone describe the origin of gravitation? Relativity only occurs when the observed scene is perceived via the dynamic field that represents our universe. GRT obscures more than it explains. It does not explain the mechanism that generates the deformation of the universe.
Who has explained the origin of electric charge? Group theory does not do that. The Standard model leaves many questions open. For example, it does not explain the generations in which fermions occur.
Mathematics is a connected system of structures that supports the behavior of subjects inside these structures. It offers a compact way of describing these facts, but it is far more than a language.
Mathematics offers the possibility to precisely define a founding structure. Subsequently it restricts the extension of that foundation to more complicated structures. A language is not capable of delivering that capability. Only excellent mathematicians master the skills to exploit these features.
Dear Hans,
General relativity is a solid theory that cancels the physics of fields and particles
A field that represents our universe? Really? What creates that field? Where and why do those particles that create that field come from? How does a change in these particles affect the field? Immediately as dictated by field physics without taking into account the limitation of c? and gravity? let me guess .. a particle and its associated field? and the dark energy? let me guess again.. a particle and its associated field..
Then we wonder why in the last 100 years nothing has been discovered not preceded by a technological advance
The field that represents the universe exists always and everywhere. It acts as our living space. All objects in universe are constituted from field excitations of this field. The electric field depends on sources or sinks that occur at the geometric center of the platforms on which elementary particles reside. Fields exist as eigenspaces of normal operators that reside in a quaternionic Hilbert space. In separable Hilbert spaces these fields are sampled fields and are constituted by a countable number of samples. These samples are archived in rational quaternions. In non-separable Hilbert spaces the fields are represented by continuum eigenspaces of normal operators.
Fields can be described by quaternionic functions and the dynamics of fields can be described by quaternionic differential calculus.
Thus, the field that represents our universe and the electric fields obey the same quaternionic field equations. They differ in their start and boundary conditions.
The creation of the underlying model also creates the fields. Elementary particles never die.
Quaternionic differential calculus applies the quaternionic nabla operator ∇. This calculus uses proper time τ, where Maxwell equations apply coordinate time t.
We use boldface to indicate vectors.
∇≡∇ᵣ+∇
∇≡{∂/∂x, ∂/∂y, ∂/∂z}
∇ᵣ≡∂/∂τ
In the quaternionic differential calculus differentiation is a multiplier operation.
Compare:
c=cᵣ+c=a b≡(aᵣ+a)(bᵣ+b)=aᵣbᵣ−〈a,b〉+abᵣ+aᵣb±a×b
and
ϕ=ϕᵣ+ϕ=∇ψ≡(∇ᵣ+∇)(ψᵣ+ψ)=∇ᵣψᵣ−〈∇,ψ〉+∇ψᵣ+∇ᵣψ±∇×ψ
∇ψ represents the change of field ψ. This change covers five terms. Part of these terms can compensate for other terms. For example, ∇ᵣ ψ can compensate ∇ψᵣ.
ϕᵣ=∇ᵣψᵣ−〈∇, ψ〉
Maxwell does not use the real part ϕᵣ of ϕ
ϕ=∇ψᵣ+∇ᵣ ψ ±∇×ψ
Double differentiation leads to the quaternionic second order differential equation:
ζ=∇*ϕ=(∇ᵣ−∇) (∇ᵣ+∇) (ψᵣ+ψ)= {∇ᵣ∇ᵣ+〈∇, ∇〉} (ψᵣ+ ψ)=ρᵣ+J
ζ={∇ᵣ∇ᵣ+〈∇, ∇〉} ψ
The equation can be split into two first-order partial differential equations ϕ=∇ψ and ζ=∇*ϕ
This equation offers no waves as its solutions. The quaternionic equivalent of the wave equation is:
φ= {∇ᵣ∇ᵣ−〈∇, ∇〉} ψ
The homogeneous version of this equation offers waves as its solution:
∇ᵣ∇ᵣ ψ=〈∇, ∇〉ψ =−ω² ψ
Corresponding Maxwell-like equations are:
E=−∇ψᵣ−∇ᵣψ
B=∇×ψ
ρᵣ=〈∇,E〉
J=∇×B−∇ᵣE
∇ᵣB=−∇×E
The corresponding second-order differential equations are:
{∇ᵣ∇ᵣ −〈∇,∇〉}ψ=J
{∇ᵣ∇ᵣ −〈∇, ∇〉}ψᵣ=ρᵣ
Solutions
The two second-order partial differential equations describe the behavior of dark objects.
φ=(∂²/∂τ²± 〈∇, ∇〉)ψ
A third equation skips the first term
φ= 〈∇, ∇〉ψ
This is the Poisson equation.
In fact, these equations are quaternionic differential equations. Thus, φ and ψ are quaternionic functions that own a scalar real part and an imaginary vector part. The solutions are quaternionic functions.
The equation using the − sign is the quaternionic equivalent of the wave equation. The equation using the + sign splits into two quaternionic first order partial differential equations. This second equation does not offer waves as solutions.
The homogeneous wave equation can be written as:
∂²ψ/∂τ²= 〈∇,∇〉ψ =-k² ψ
This delivers the quantized wave solutions of the Helmholtz equation
The dark objects behave as shock fronts and operate only as odd-dimensional field excitations. During travel, all shock fronts keep the shape of the front.
All solutions of a homogeneous second-order partial differential equation superpose in new solutions of that equation
One-dimensional shock fronts
The one-dimensional shock fronts also keep their amplitude. Consequently, the one-dimensional shock fronts can travel huge distances without losing their properties. Combined equidistantly in strings, they represent the functionality of photons. This means that the one-dimensional shock fronts are the tiniest possible packages of pure energy.
Depending on the PDE, the solutions can be described by different equations. The solution for the wave equation is
g(q ,τ)=f(c τ ± |q−qₒ|)
This solution cannot represent polarization.
The solution for the other equation is
g(q ,τ)=f(c τ ± |q−qₒ| i)
The vector i can indicate the polarization of the shock front.
A photon is a string of equidistant energy packages that obeys the Einstein-Planck relation
E = h ν.
Since photons possess polarization, they use the second solution for their energy packages. Thus, the constituents of photons are not solutions of the wave equation.
Green’s function
One of the solutions of the Poisson equation is the Green’s function
g(𝐪)=1/|𝐪−𝐪ₒ|
∇g(𝐪)=( 𝐪−𝐪ₒ)/|𝐪−𝐪ₒ|³
〈∇, ∇〉 g(𝐪)= 〈∇, ∇g(𝐪)〉=4πδ( 𝐪−𝐪ₒ)
Thus, the Green’s function is a static pulse response under purely isotropic conditions.
Three-dimensional shock front
The three-dimensional shock fronts require an isotropic trigger. These field excitations integrate over time into the Green's function of the field. That function has some volume, and the pulse response injects this volume into the field. Subsequently, the front spreads the volume over the field. The corresponding solution of the wave equation is
g(r ,τ)=f(c τ ± r)/r
The parameter r is the radius of the spherical front. The formula can also be written as
g(q ,τ)=f(c τ ± |q−qₒ|)/|q−qₒ|
The solution for the other PED is
g(q ,τ)=f(c τ ± |q−qₒ| i)/|q−qₒ|
In this solution, the vector i acts as a spin vector.
Thus, the initial deformation quickly fades away. but the expansion of the field stays. Having the capability to deform the carrier field corresponds to owning a corresponding amount of mass. This means that temporarily, the spherical pulse response owns some mass. This mass vanishes, but the expansion stays.
A huge coherent, recurrently regenerated swarm of spherical pulse responses can generate a significant and persistent deformation that moves with the swarm. This happens in the footprint of elementary particles. The spherical pulses are generated by the hop landing locations of the particle. The hopping path forms a hop landing location swarm that is described by a location density distribution. This distribution equals the square of the modulus of the wavefunction of the particle.
Pulse responses are a solution of {∇ᵣ∇ᵣ±〈∇, ∇〉} ψ((𝐪, τ)=4πδ( 𝐪−𝐪ₒ)θ(τ−τₒ)
I disagree that gravity and electric charge are understood; we can describe what they do, but we don't really know why they are or how they originate. I don't think we understand a lot of quantum mechanics, and in particular what the wave function even is. I join the pilot wave group in stating there is a wave, although I make a couple of variations due to maths/logic. As for the elementary particle nature and that of the strong and weak force, I am not convinced we understand those properly, although again we are starting to be able to describe things, but as I understand it, we still cannot calculate the masses of the elementary particles. There is more to do.
Try to read "A Self-creating Model of Physical Reality"; http://vixra.org/abs/1908.0223 It pays much attention to the origins of gravity and electric charge. If you can disprove these explanations, then I am very interested.
Fair enough challenge, Hans, but my failure to disprove does not necessarily make it right. I have downloaded it, but you ill forgive me (I hope) in that examining this will have to be delayed because I have my own theoretical work and I ama presenting two of them at a conference in a little over a month, and I have to get that right as a priority. But it is impressive that you have done what you have.
Ian Miller
I wish you much success with your presentations.
I am confident that the content of the booklet "A Self-consistent Model of Physical Reality" is self-consistent and without flaws. That does not say that the model will easily be accepted. It is unorthodox and unconventional. It differs in several points essentially from what I was teached at the university.
The free online booklet contains new mathematics and new physics.
For example, I nowhere encountered a similar treatment of quaternionic differential and integral calculus.
@ Hans van Leunen
I can assure you that anything unconventional will not be easily accepted. My two efforts will have a tough time yet nobody has ever managed to find anything seriously wrong with them. One involves quantum mechanics; my argument differs from anyone else's in that if you apply Euler's complex number theory to the wave function, it is not completely complex as it becomes real at the antinode and I attribute defining aspects to the antinode, while if I assume that in the two-slit experiment, the diffraction is caused by the wave, its phase velocity has to equal the particle velocity (within uncertainty) and if so the square of the amplitude defines the energy of the particle. That permits quite straightforward calculations of chemical bond energies with no assignable constants other than quantum numbers. The second involves planetary formation. Standard theory has planets form by the gravitational collapse of a uniform distribution of planetesimals, but nobody has any idea how they form. My argument is rather straightforward chemistry, but then the distribution is not uniform, and the various bodies have different and clearly defined compositions. As a consequence there will be no life under the ice at Europa because there is essentially no nitrogen or carbon. That is why the Jovian moons have next to no atmosphere, and observationally there are more sodium atoms in the remarkably tenuous atmosphere of Europa than nitrogen. I do not expect anyone to find any flaws in either, but equally I do not expect anyone to change their own minds. It is a hard task to change minds.
Ian Miller
Be careful with interpreting and applying the wavefunction. The square of the modulus of the wavefunction has more relation to physical reality because it can be related to a stochastic process that owns a characteristic function. The square of the modulus of the wavefunction is a location density distribution which describes a coherent swarm of locations that are generated by the stochastic process. The characteristic function of the process is the Fourier transform of the location density distribution. If the process is controlled in this way then the generated location swarm cannot change the location density distribution that describes the location swarm. The swarm is the footprint of the particle. If the process generates the locations one by one, then the process generates an ongoing hopping path and this is done such that recurrently a location swarm is generated of which the location density distribution describes the shape. If every location causes a pulse response of the embedding field, then the gravitation potential equals the convolution of this pulse response with the location density distribution. Thus the gravitation potential is directly linked with the gravitation potential of the owner of the wave function. Far from the geometric center of the particle the gravitation potential can be described by MG/r. This also says something about the shape of the wavefunction. It also relates the wavefunction to the mass of the particle. If the location density distribution is a normal distribution, and if the pulse response of the field can be represented by the Green's function of the field, then the Gaussian shape of the normal distribution and the 1/r shape of the Green's function lead to a gravitation potential that has is described by MG ERF(r)/r. This is a perfectly smooth function that does not show any singularity. This example contains several simplifications but it gives an idea of the relation of the wavefunction and the gravitation potential of the particle. The picture will fit best for elementary particles.
The description also explains why the footprint of the particle behaves as if it can be described by a wave package. That is why it can participate in interference patterns and can show wave behavior. For such distributions, apertures can act as imaging devices. The Optical Transfer Function of the aperture is the Fourier transform of the aperture's transmission pattern. It must be multiplied with the Fourier transform of the passing distribution. For elementary particles this is the characteristic distribution of the generating stochastic process. The Fourier transform of the product determines the point spread function of the produced image.
Elementary particles can form conglomerates. The location density distributions of the conglomerates are far more complicated than the simple Gaussian distributions of the footprints of the separate elementary particles.
Hans van Leunen
The interesting thing about the square of the modulus of a wave function having properties is that the standard interpretation argues the wave function is not a physical entity which raises the question, how can it determine specific probabilities? Like de Broglie and Bohm, my guidance wave interpretation assumes there is a wave, but whereas the standard theory attributes very specific meaning to something that is not physically there, I merely take the square of the amplitude to the wave that is assumed to be there, and I assign the energy to that. Given that the energy transmitted by other waves in physics is given by the amplitude squared, I do not consider that to be too radical, and it has the advantage of permitting straightforward calculations of the chemical bond that generally agree very well with observation. So, besides arguably being a reasonable interpretation/theory, it can be used to calculate molecular properties that are otherwise very difficult to calculate, and then only with "validation"of constants, which I consider to be empirical corrections.
Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm ,
I agree completely with your list; I would even say that there is in the theories of fundamental physics, no understanding of the under laying processes. Why do the constants have the value they have? They look more like a fitting procedure to experimental data ( at best).
I have just finished the first (I think) complete theory of everything "The Daon Theory", It can be found in my profile or in ViXra. It has a very simple mathematics and is essentially based on new ideas and a different approach to physics. It is simple logical and in agreement with all experimental data.
If you have time, have a look,
JES
Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm,
I really liked the analysis you have done, I invite you, if you fancy of course, to do a similar analysis of the following theory:
Preprint ALL SPECIAL RELATIVITY EQUATIONS OBTAINED USING GALILEAN TRA...
(Related to: "The problem of quantum gravity: Combine general relativity and quantum theory into a single theory that can claim to be the complete theory of nature")
The shortlist of electric charges and color charges in the Standard Model indicates that at the scale of elementary particles anisotropy of symmetries play a relevant role. This is treated in
Preprint Representing basic physical fields by quaternionic fields
Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm,
" In other words, if a certain volume in space has a size of 1 m3, a volume of 1 km3 always represent a fixed amount of 1 m3 volumes. No matter the position of the volume of 1 km3 in the universe "
True, unless a volume travels at relativistic speeds in which case they are at different Zoom levels, think that an object traveling through the Zoom dimension will have the same m^3 (the m pattern itself will increase) but if we use the invariant c to measure the volumes, will change.
"So why do we need a Zoom-dimension if the basic properties of the universe cannot “zoom” at all? "
If they can and in fact do it, notice that for all the effects, in our 3 dimensions it is indistinguishable to the passage of time
"There is no “Zoom-conjecture” in set theory too (set theory is created to describe the dynamical relations of observable reality in a mathematical way)."
No idea, in return two mathematical problems that need the Zoom interpreted as dimension to solve it: The problem of the coast and the problem: it reaches from A to B using only half of the distance that is missing each time
"Spacetime is a hypothetical construction and Lorenz transformations are meaningless without macroscopic observations"
The equations in the special relativity part, are very easy to follow, you can see that Lorentz transformation is not necessary to have the same results
"People will ask you: “What is the relevance of your hypothesis that out-pass modern quantum field theory?”
" Explanation and demonstration of how and why dimensions and time are created, a medium for the transmission of light in a vacuum (I don't know the "official" explanation but I know that it implies energy in a vacuum (incompatible with general relativity) apart I doubt that I get the wave equation) a common point for quantum entanglement and a logical explanation to the wave-particle duality"
"Do other researchers need it?"
If you want to discover something without always hitting the same wall I would say that we would have to change the paradigm
Thank you very much for your reading and your comment :)
Dear Sydney and all,
Hypothesis that more or less fit the reality we know there can be millions, an unproven hypothesis is nothing, we are not prophets, we are scientists.
The only way (unless you have advanced means) are mathematics, an equation may be right or wrong, but it's always the truth.
I had a hypothesis, but that's nothing, if you have a hypothesis you work hard and you demonstrate it, I take 6 years to prove it but I learned that through equations, the initial hypothesis is had adapting, changing until you have something really solid, able to answer any questions.
That is why an initial hypothesis is worth nothing and will almost certainly be wrong.
The dimensions are not a human invention, they are a reality, but you cannot say that there are 9 dimensions such as string theory, wiyhout name them. They must exist and they must be a logical way of desplacement.
Physically and mathematically, adding a dimension solves a lot of problems. Think about the earth that was believed flat (which can be extrapolated to the entire universe) or how to turn 3 gears at once.
My theory solves impossible questions only by applying that simple principle, the Zoom, we have applied always (is not a meter and a centimeter different scales?) never seen it as a dimension, although curiously we must always use meters seconds etc. for to that an equation was "dimensionally" correct, it is funny that we have always had it front us and we have not seen it.
"Conclusion: researchers have to start research in the" field of discovering ultimate reality "at the moment they understand how they have to judge their own ideas."
Keep in mind that I have deduced ALL the equations of relativity only based on the form of the universe and that form is the most logical possible, because it is the ONLY ONE that answers ALL and any question you can think of.
Besides, I have also been able to deduce E = hf the beginning of the quantum phisics, but I will not publish it nowhere. For what?
Ian Miller
Stochastic processes that own a characteristic function play an essential role in physical reality. For example Inhomogeneous spatial Poisson point processes can be seen as the combination of a genuine Poisson process and a binomial process, where the binomial process is implemented by a spatial point spread function. This location density distribution is the Fourier transform of the characteristic function of the process. If the process generates an ongoing hopping path that recurrently regenerates a hop landing location swarm that is described by the location density distribution, then the square of the modulus of the location density distribution conforms to what physicists would interpret as the wavefunction of the hopping point-like object.
See:
Preprint Representing basic physical fields by quaternionic fields
Hans van Leunen
I don't think anyone would object to the description as a probability distribution. The issue is whether there is a particle that travels around and most definitely not by a classical trajectory and thus turns up at each point at a frequency according to the function, or whether it is always dispersed in space according to the function, which some seem to think. If you accept the former, in my opinion the measurement problem is not really a problem
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Electromagnetics
- Electromagnetic Fields