Quantum-Geometry Dynamics: October 2016

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Dark Matter’s Two Types of Interactions

This article is aimed at readers who are not familiar with quantum-geometry dynamics.

Quantum-geometry dynamics (QGD) is a theory derived from a minimal axiom set necessary to describe dynamics systems in a fundamentally discrete universe.

According to QGD, all matter in the universe is compose of $preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}}$ which is the fundamental unit of matter. $Preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}}$ , being fundamental, do not decay or transmute into other particles but they combine to form all that we know from photons and neutrinos, to more massive and complex structures.

Most $preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}}$ are still free and permeate space and interact in only two ways: Gravitationally and through the electromagnetic effect.

We have explained in an earlier article that in its initial state the universe only contained free $preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}}$ that distributed homogeneously throughout the entire space. The cosmic microwave background was formed when $preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}}$ combined to form photons. Thus QGD explains the isotropy of the CMBR with few physical assumptions; all of them testable using present technology. $Preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}}$ account for all other large scale effects attributed to dark matter (gravitational lensing for example) but there are local effects at our scale that we observe or make use of every day.

QGD explains that magnetic fields result from the interaction of charged particles or structures and the free $preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}}$ of their neighbouring regions. And changes in momentum induced by magnetic fields are simply the momentums imparted by their polarized $preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}}$ .

If QGD is correct, there is nothing mysterious or unusual about dark matter. We encounter it every day but just don’t call it that.

Monday, October 24, 2016

Thanks for the Advice but…

There is a lot of advice out there for outsider scientists from allegedly well-intentioned members of the scientific community and much of it makes a lot of sense. Doing your homework, understanding your subject, acquiring the mathematical skills necessary to express ideas in a way that can be understood and which may allow them to make not only quantitative descriptions of physical phenomena but testable predictions; all of which are essential if one wants to contribute to whatever subject one choses.

But a lot of that advice is purely sociological and have little to do with science. A lot the well-meaning, well-intentioned advice is really about doing all that is necessary to be recognized and accepted by the institutionalized scientific community and ignores one essential fact. The goal of science is to try and make sense of nature as it is revealed through experiments and observations. But to most other respected members of the academia, acceptance by the scientific community implies scientific validity and vice versa, but does it really?

I have read quite a few articles aimed to help the outsiders (they pretty much say the same thing). The last one I came across is an article written in 2007 by physics professor Sean Carroll. He correctly describes what is required for an outsider scientist to be taken seriously by the academia, but he never really discusses what is required of a scientific theory to be considered valid.

A theory is required to describe, explain and predict. And by predictions, I mean testable predictions. But even that is unclear and subject to interpretation so let me clarify.

For a theory to be scientific, it must answer positively to the following questions:

Do its axioms form an internally consistent set?
Is the theory rigorously derived from the axiom set?
Are all descriptions derived from the theory consistent with observations?
Can we derive explanations from its axiom set that are consistent with observations?
Can we derive from the axiom set unique and testable predictions?

Questions 1 to 5 allow us to determine if theory is scientific, but to be valid, a theory must answer the question:

Have the predictions derived from the theory been observationally or experimentally confirmed?

Carroll also paraphrases an argument proposed by pretty much everyone who provides advice for outsiders. That is: A new theory must agree with theories that have been well tested. But what does that mean exactly?

Does it mean that a new theory must agree with an established theory’s explanations or interpretations of observations? If that were the case, then the relativity theory’s interpretations of observations would need to agree with Newtonian interpretations which they don’t and can’t since they are based on are mutually exclusive axiom sets.

What agreeing with an established theory means then is that the explanations, descriptions and predictions derived from a new theory must minimally agree with observations that have been found to support established theories. This requirement appears simple enough, yet it is misunderstood by the majority of both insiders and outsiders alike. So further clarification is required.

Agreeing with observations is not the same as agreeing with theory-dependant interpretations of observations. Both Newtonian gravity and general relativity agree on many observations for which they have completely different interpretations. So a number of theories can be in contradictions with one another yet correctly describe the very same observations. Because of that, only by testing predictions unique to each theory can we determine which ones are valid.

If I may offer a piece of advice to members of the scientific community who are willing to bestow their wisdom upon us lowly outsiders. I agree that we should respect all the hard work, the sacrifices, the dedication and passion of the professional researchers. That said; respect is a two way street.

There is no much respect in underestimating the intellects of outsiders, no much respect in choosing as the only examples of outsider theories the most idiotic. There are outsiders who though they may have unorthodox approaches have and can contribute to our understanding of nature. They are no less dedicated, hardworking and no less capable of mathematical rigor.

Condescension may get a few laughs from your peers, but it only shows arrogance and contempt for those you seek respect from. If you really want to help, if you really do want to help, then try and step down from your academic ivory tower and do just that; help. Filter out the crackpots and cranks (you already have experience dealing with plenty of those in your own ranks) and open some channels. Outreach programs are important, but “inreach” programs are the only thing that would help if help is what you sincerely want to do.

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Determining the Intrinsic Luminosities of Distant Supernovas

The current methods of determining the intrinsic luminosities of supernovas require correcting their apparent luminosities using their redshifts.

These methods are consistent with our current understanding of the redshift effects but this understanding may be put into question if the data collected from the GAIA mission confirms that the motion of stars around in our galaxy does not show the flatness of the angular speed of stars of similar galaxies as determined by their redshifts.

Observational confirmation of the above prediction would support QGD’s explanation of the redshift effects. The relation between redshifts and apparent luminosities following from QGD would allow for more precise determinations of the intrinsic luminosities of supernovas, hence their distances, but only provided that the distances of the reference supernovas are determined through their parallaxes so as to avoid model dependent physical assumptions.

And should QGD’s description of the redshift effect, it would be possible to determine the intrinsic speed of the Earth using supernovas as explained here.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

The Measurement of the Rotation of Galaxies and Redshifts

We have shown (see QGD and the Redshift Effect) that the redshift effect is dependent on the speed of the detector relative to the intrinsic speed of the photon. This provides a very different interpretation of the redshift observations from distant galaxies. The usual theoretical interpretation of the redshift, as dependent on the motion of the source relative to the detector is used to measure the speed of distant objects, including the rotation speed of galaxies.

The classical interpretation of the redshift gives speeds of rotation that are not in agreement our best theories of gravity which predicts the nearer star are to its galactic center, the greater their speeds should be. But that is not what was observed.

The orbital speeds of stars, estimated from their redshifts, are about the same regardless of their distance from their galactic centre. This led to the introduction of dark matter models to explain the discrepancy between predictions and observations. QGD does not dispute the existence of dark matter which existence it predicts and is supported by a number of observations that do not depend on redshifts measurements. However, QGD shows that the redshifts from all stars from a galaxy will be the same independently of their speed. In other words, even if their actual orbital speeds are in agreement with our theories of gravity, their redshifts will be the same. Hence the orbital speeds of stars derived from the accepted redshift interpretation will give similar speeds in agreement with observations.

Prediction

QGD predicts that the angular and axial speeds of stars estimated through their parallaxes will show them to be dependent on their distance from the galactic center. GAIA , which is underway, will be making such observations which could confirm QGD’s prediction.

The Measurement of Physical Properties and Frames of Reference

Note: the following is a section of Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics

According to QGD:

${{m}_{a}}$ , the mass of an object $a$ , is equal to the number of $preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}}$ that compose it;
${{E}_{a}}$ , its energy, is equal to its mass multiplied by the fundamental momentum of the $preo{{n}^{\left( + \right)}}$ ; that is: where ${{\vec{c}}_{i}}$ is the momentum vector of a $preo{{n}^{\left( + \right)}}$ and $c=\left\| {{{\vec{c}}}_{i}} \right\|$ is the fundamental momentum, then ${{E}_{a}}=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{{{m}_{a}}}{\left\| {{{\vec{c}}}_{i}} \right\|}={{m}_{a}}c$ .
${{\vec{P}}_{a}}$ , the momentum vector of an object, is equal to the vector sum of all the momentum vectors of its component $preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}}$ or ${{\vec{P}}_{a}}=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{{{m}_{a}}}{{{{\vec{c}}}_{i}}}$ and ${{P}_{a}}$ , its momentum, is the magnitude of its momentum vector. That is: ${{P}_{a}}=\left\| {{{\vec{P}}}_{a}} \right\|=\left\| \sum\limits_{i=1}^{{{m}_{a}}}{{{{\vec{c}}}_{i}}} \right\|$ and finally
${{v}_{a}}$ , its speed, is the ratio of its momentum over its mass or ${{v}_{a}}=\frac{{{P}_{a}}}{{{m}_{a}}}=\frac{\left\| \sum\limits_{i=1}^{{{m}_{a}}}{{{{\vec{c}}}_{i}}} \right\|}{{{m}_{a}}}$ .

All the properties above are intrinsic which implies that they are qualitatively and quantitatively independent of the frame of reference against which they are measured. We must however make the essential distinction between the measurement of a property of an object and its actual intrinsic property.

Take for instance the speed of light which we have derived from the fundamental description of the properties of mass and momentum and shown to be constant. That is: ${{v}_{\gamma }}=\frac{{{P}_{\gamma }}}{{{m}_{\gamma }}}$ and since, for momentum vectors of photons all point in the same direction we have ${{P}_{\gamma }}={{E}_{\gamma }}$ and $\displaystyle {{v}_{\gamma }}=\frac{{{P}_{\gamma }}}{{{m}_{\gamma }}}=\frac{{{E}_{\gamma }}}{{{m}_{\gamma }}}=\frac{{{m}_{\gamma }}c}{{{m}_{\gamma }}}=c$ .

If we were to experimentally measure the speed of light, or more precisely, the speed of photons, we would set up instruments within an agreed upon frame of reference. We would map the space in which the measurement apparatus is set and though the property of speed is intrinsic, thus independent of the frame of reference, the measurement of the property is dependent on the frame of reference. But if, as we know, the speed of light has been observed to be independent of the frame of reference, then how can this be reconciled with QGD’s intrinsic speed?

Before moving forward with the experiment it is important to consider what it is that our apparatus actually measures. Speed is conventionally defined as the ratio of displacement over time, that is $v=\frac{d}{t}$ where $d$ the distance is and $t$ is time. Space and time here are considered physical dimensions and as a consequence the conventional definition of speed is never questioned.

Distance can be measured by something as primitive as a yard stick and its physicality is hard to argue with. Time and its physicality pose serious problems. Time is assumed to be measurable using a clock of some sort but, it is easily shown that clocks are simply cyclic and periodic systems linked to counting devices and they do not measured time but merely count the number of repetitions of arbitrarily chosen states of these systems.

So conventional speed in general, and that of light in particular, is simply the distance in conventional units something travels divided by the number of cycles a clock goes through during its travel. Therefore the conventional definition of speed, which is the ratio of the distance travelled by an object over the number of cycles, is not the objects speed, but of the distance travelled between two cycles. That goes for the speed of photons.

There is a relation between conventional speed and intrinsic speed and we find that the conventional speed of a photon is proportional to its intrinsic speed, that is $\frac{d}{t}\propto {{v}_{\gamma }}$ , but while conventional speed is relational (and not physical since time itself is not physical) , the intrinsic speed is physical since it is derived from momentum and mass, both of which are measurable, hence physical.

Now going back to frames of reference, let us assume a room moving at an intrinsic speed ${{v}_{a}}$ . A source of photons is placed at the very centre of the room which photons are detected by detectors placed on the walls, floor and ceiling. The source and detectors are linked are in turn linked to a clock by wires of the same length. The clock registers the emission and the reception of the photons in such a way that we can calculate the conventional speed of photons. For now, we will assume that the direction of motion of the room is along the $x$ axis.
QGD predicts that even though the intrinsic speed of photons is reference frame independent, their one way conventional speed to detector ${{D}_{{{x}_{1}}}}$ will be larger than their one way conventional speed at the detector ${{D}_{{{x}_{2}}}}$ . The relativity theory predicts that the conventional speed of photons will be the same at both detectors independently of ${{v}_{a}}$ . So all that is needed to test which theory gives the correct prediction is to make one way measurements of the conventional speed of photons. Problem is; all measurements of the speed of light are two way measurements and since any possible contribution of ${{v}_{a}}$ to the conventional speed of photons traveling in one direction is cancelled out when it is reflected in the other direction. In other words since both QGD and the relativity theory predicts the two way measurements will be equal at ${{D}_{{{x}_{1}}}}$ and ${{D}_{{{x}_{2}}}}$ such experiments cannot distinguish between QGD and the relativity theory.

However, a similar experiment which measures not speed but momentum can distinguish between the theories. The photons at detector ${{D}_{{{x}_{2}}}}$ will be redshifted while those at ${{D}_{{{x}_{1}}}}$ would be blueshifted. Both theories predict ${{P}_{{{D}_{{{x}_{1}}}}}}>{{P}_{{{D}_{{{x}_{2}}}}}}$ but their predictions for the other detectors are different.

Assuming that the room’s motion is align with the $x$ axis*, the relativity theory predicts that ${{P}_{{{D}_{{{x}_{1}}}}}}>{{P}_{{{D}_{{{y}_{1}}}}}}={{P}_{{{D}_{{{y}_{2}}}}}}={{P}_{{{D}_{{{z}_{1}}}}}}={{P}_{{{D}_{{{z}_{2}}}}}}>{{P}_{{{D}_{{{x}_{2}}}}}}$ . For the same experiment the QGD theory predicts ${{P}_{{{D}_{{{x}_{1}}}}}}={{P}_{{{D}_{{{y}_{1}}}}}}={{P}_{{{D}_{{{y}_{2}}}}}}={{P}_{{{D}_{{{z}_{1}}}}}}={{P}_{{{D}_{{{z}_{2}}}}}}>{{P}_{{{D}_{{{x}_{2}}}}}}$ .

If QGD’s prediction is verified, then the intrinsic of the frame of reference can be calculated using the equations we introduced earlier to describe the redshift effect. That is; from our description of the redshift effect, we know that $\displaystyle {{P}_{\gamma }}=\Delta {{P}_{{{D}_{{{x}_{1}}}}}}$ then we have $\displaystyle \frac{c-{{v}_{a}}}{c}{{m}_{\gamma }}={{P}_{\gamma }}-\frac{{{v}_{a}}}{c}={{P}_{{{D}_{{{x}_{1}}}}}}-\frac{{{v}_{a}}}{c}={{P}_{{{D}_{{{x}_{2}}}}}}$ and $\displaystyle {{v}_{a}}=\left( {{P}_{{{D}_{{{x}_{1}}}}}}-{{P}_{{{D}_{{{x}_{2}}}}}} \right)c$ .

Once the intrinsic speed of a reference system is known, then it can be taken into account when estimating the physical properties of light emitting objects from within it.

QGD’s description of the redshift effect implies distinct predictions for all observations based on redshifts measurement but I would like to bring attention to one direct consequence which has been confirmed by observations; the observed flatness of the orbital speed of stars around their galactic centers .

* The alignment with the $x$ axis is found by rotating that detector assembly so that the ${{D}_{{{x}_{2}}}}$ detector measures the lowest momentum (largest redshift).

Quantum-Geometry Dynamics