Tuesday, July 22, 2014

An Axiomatic Approach to Physics


Notice: QGD as greatly evolved since An Axiomatic Approach to Physics was written.  I will keep the article and link below for reference, but most recent developments see Quantum-Geometry Dynamics; an axiomatic approach to physics.

Abstract
Quantum-geometry dynamics; a theory derived from a minimal set of axioms can describe, explain and predict the behaviour of dynamic systems.
First, we will introduce a set of axioms and corollaries which will be used to fundamentally define space, mass, momentum, energy and forces. This will be followed by a discussion of quantum-geometrical space and its geometry. Then, we will show how gravity emerges naturally from the axiom set and propose a new equation for gravity that can be applied at different scales. At the same time, we will provide quantum-geometrical interpretations of the laws of motion and use them to describe dynamic systems. We will follow by providing quantum-geometrical grounds for key predictions of special relativity, general relativity and Newtonian mechanics. Although quantum-geometry dynamics will be shown to be in agreement with physical observations and with the predictions of special and general relativity, quantum-geometry dynamics allows for distinct falsifiable predictions that set it apart from them.

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the editorial help of my good friends Mark Batten-Carew (first and longtime supporter of QGD) and Pete Bonkemeyer (enthusiastic new supporter), of mathematicians Ben Dribus and Keli Etscorn for their comments, impressions and for going over the math, and special thanks to physicist and friend Xiaoxiao Wang for his excellent suggestions, to astrophysicist Martín López Corredoira for taking the time to read this latest paper and encouraging me to continue my research and publish my predictions, and to Meng-Chwan Tan, for taking time from his busy schedule to provide needed advice. Thank you all for your open mindedness to new ideas.

An Axiomatic Approach to Physics (new draft)

Download PDF file

Monday, May 12, 2014

The Slowing Down of Clocks as Explained by QGD

This article assumes basic knowledge of quantum-geometry dynamics; minimally the concepts presented in the short article Quantum-Geometry Dynamics in a Nutshell.

QGD considers time to be purely a relational concept. In other words, time is not an aspect of physical reality. But if time does not exist, how does QGD explain the different experiments which results support time dilation; the phenomenon predicted by special relativity by which time for an object slows down as its speed increases.

To explain the time dilation experiments we must remember that clocks do not measure time, they count the recurrences of a particular periodic system. The most generic definition possible of a clock is a system which periodically resumes an identifiable state and a counting mechanism that counts the recurrences of that state.

Clocks are physical devices and thus, according to QGD, are made of molecules, themselves made of atom composed of particles all of which are ultimately made of bounded preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}} .

We know that the magnitude of the momentum vector of a preo{{n}^{\left( + \right)}} is fundamental and invariable. The momentum vector is denoted by \vec{c} the momentum is \left\| {\vec{c}} \right\|=c . We have shown that the momentum vector of a structure is given by {{\vec{P}}_{a}}=\left\| \sum\limits_{i=1}^{{{m}_{a}}}{{{{\vec{c}}}_{i}}} \right\| and its speed by {{v}_{a}}=\frac{\left\| \sum\limits_{i=1}^{{{m}_{a}}}{{{{\vec{c}}}_{i}}} \right\|}{{{m}_{a}}} . From these equations, it follows that the maximum possible speed of an object a corresponds to the state at which all of its component preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}} move in the same direction. In such case we have \left\| \sum\limits_{i=1}^{{{m}_{a}}}{{{{\vec{c}}}_{i}}} \right\|=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{{{m}_{a}}}{\left\| {{{\vec{c}}}_{i}} \right\|}={{m}_{a}}c and {{v}_{a}}=\frac{{{m}_{a}}c}{{{m}_{a}}}=c . Note here that \sum\limits_{i=1}^{{{m}_{a}}}{\left\| {{{\vec{c}}}_{i}} \right\|} corresponds to the energy of a so the maximum speed of an object can also be defined as the state at which its momentum is equal to its energy.

From the above we see that the speed of an object must be between 0 and c while all its component preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}} move at the fundamental speed of c .

Now whatever speed a clock may travel, the speed of its component preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}} is always equal to c . And since a clock’s inner mechanisms which produces changes in states depend fundamentally on the interactions and motion of its component preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}} , the rate at which any mechanism causing a given periodic state must be limited by the lowest inner motion speed which is transversal speed of its component preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}} .

Simple vector calculus shows that the transversal speed of bound preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}} is given by \sqrt{{{c}^{2}}-v_{a}^{2}} where {{v}_{a}} is the speed at which a clock a travels. It follows that the number of recurrence of a state, denoted t for ticks of a clock, produced over a given reference distance {{d}_{ref}} is proportional to the transversal speed of component preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}} , that is

\frac{t}{{{d}_{ref}}}\propto \sqrt{{{c}^{2}}-v_{a}^{2}} . It is thus easy to see that as the speed at which a clock travels is increased, the rate at which it produces ticks slows down and becomes 0 when its speed reaches c .

We have thus explained the observed slowing down of periodic systems without resorting to the concepts of time or time dilation.

So we see that though the predictions of special relativity in regards to the slowing down of clocks (or any physical system whether periodic or not, or biological in the case of the twin paradox) are in agreement with the predictions QGD, QGD’s explanation is based solely on fundamental aspects of reality. Also, since according to QGD, mass, momentum, energy and speed are being intrinsic properties of matter, their values are independent of any frame of reference it precludes the paradoxes, contradictions and complications associated with frames of reference.

However, though both QGD and special relativity predict the effect of speed on clocks, there are important differences in their explanation of the phenomenon and the quantitative changes in rate. While for special relativity the effect is caused by a slowing down of time, QGD explains that it is a slowing down of the mechanisms clocks themselves.

If t and {t}' are the number of ticks counted by two identical clocks counted travelling respectively at speeds {{v}_{a}} and {{{v}'}_{a}} over the same distance {{d}_{ref}} then QGD predicts that

{t}'=t\frac{\sqrt{{{c}^{2}}-v_{a}^{'2}}}{\sqrt{{{c}^{2}}-v_{a}^{2}}}.

This prediction sets QGD apart from special relativity’s prediction that {t}'=t\frac{1}{\sqrt{{{c}^{2}}-{{v}^{2}}}} . However, it is important to note that the two predictions of the QGD and the special relativity equations cannot be directly compared. The speed in the relativist equation is the relative speed of the clocks while the QGD equation makes uses the distinct and intrinsic speed of the clocks.

Slowing Down of Clocks due to Gravity

Since {{v}_{a}}=\frac{\left\| {{{\vec{P}}}_{a}} \right\|}{{{m}_{a}}} then  \displaystyle \frac{t}{{{d}_{ref}}}\propto \sqrt{{{c}^{2}}-v_{a}^{2}}=\sqrt{{{c}^{2}}-{{\left( \frac{\left\| {{{\vec{P}}}_{a}} \right\|}{{{m}_{a}}} \right)}^{2}}}.  We have also shown that gravity affects the orientation of the component   preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}}   of structure so that   \Delta {{\vec{P}}_{a}}=\Delta G\left( a;b \right)   and   \Delta {{v}_{a}}=\frac{\Delta G\left( a;b \right)}{{{m}_{a}}}   and since    {{{v}'}_{a}}={{v}_{a}}+\frac{\Delta G\left( a;b \right)}{{{m}_{a}}}    in order to predict the effect of gravity on the rates of clocks, all we need to do is substitute the appropriate value in   {t}'=t\frac{\sqrt{{{c}^{2}}-v_{a}^{'2}}}{\sqrt{{{c}^{2}}-v_{a}^{2}}}   and we get    {t}'=t\frac{\sqrt{{{c}^{2}}-{{\left( {{v}_{a}}+\frac{\Delta G\left( a;b \right)}{{{m}_{a}}} \right)}^{2}}}}{\sqrt{{{c}^{2}}-v_{a}^{2}}}

where   \Delta G\left( a;b \right)=G\left( a;b|{{d}_{1}} \right)-G\left( a;b|{{d}_{2}} \right) .

As we can see, the greater the gravitational interaction between a clock and a body, the slower will be its rate of recurrence of a given periodic state. This prediction is also in agreement with general relativity’s prediction of the slowing down of clocks by gravity.

 

Conclusion and Implications

We have shown that the slowing down of clocks resulting from increases in speed or the effect gravity is explained not as a slowing down of time, but as a slowing down of their intrinsic mechanisms.

The effects of the time dilation predicted by special relativity and general relativity are both described by \frac{t}{{{d}_{ref}}}\propto \sqrt{{{c}^{2}}-\frac{\left\| {{{\vec{P}}}_{a}} \right\|+\Delta G\left( a;b \right)}{{{m}_{a}}}} since it takes into account both the effect of the speed and gravity on a clock. Thus, if QGD is correct, the predictions of SR and GR are approximations of particular solutions of the QGD equation.

We will see in a later articles how QGD can predict the behaviour of binary pulsar systems and explain and predict the decay of atmospheric muons, both phenomenon supporting special relativity and general relativity.

The decay of muons is particularly significant as it provides indirect evidence supporting QGD’s prediction that they (and all other particles believed to be elementary) have structure and are composed of preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}} .

Monday, April 28, 2014

On the Singularity of Light (QGD optics part 1)

The theoretical interpretations of observations of the behaviour of light indicate that it possess the mutually exclusive properties of the wave and the particle; a paradox that is known as the particle/wave duality. That light may have wave properties was hypothesized following observations of how light behaves in diffraction experiments, particularly in interference experiments such as the double-slit experiment where light produces diffraction and interference patterns that appear similar with diffraction patterns produced from observable waves in nature (such as waves on the surface of liquid). The similarities between the diffraction patterns are thought to imply that light may fundamentally be a wave.

Yet, some experiments, particularly those using a Talbot-Lau interferometer, have shown that material structures such as protons, neutrons, atoms, and even very large molecules display wavelike behaviour, that is, they display optical properties in the form of diffraction patterns. That calls the question: Does the wavelike behavior of light imply that it is fundamentally a wave? In order to answer that question, we need to understand what a wave is.

First, it is important to note that waves which we have observed and which inspired the wave model of light actually emerges from the motion of discrete structures; the motion of molecules of air or the molecules of water, for example. Thus the mathematical representation we call wave function models the motion and distribution of discrete particles that constitute a medium and describes the absorption and transfer of perturbation energy to other molecules of the medium, which create the waves which will eventually restore the state of equilibrium that existed prior to the perturbation (as when a stone is thrown in a pond, causing the displacement of water molecules).

Thus waves emerge from the interactions between discrete particles. That brings the questions: Is there really a wave-particle duality? Considering the above the answer is obviously “no.” Waves can be understood as the change in distribution in space of particles under the influence of a perturbation (kinetic energy) (and gravity for liquids submitted to Earth’s attraction). The wave properties are emergent, thus they cannot be fundamental.

Consider this: When studied under a powerful microscope, waves disappear leaving nothing but the motion of molecules. So would it make sense that we attribute to water molecules the fundamental property of the wave? Of course not! So why do we attribute the fundamental wave property to light? A property cannot at the same time be fundamental and emergent. And if we’re going to use the wave model for light, then isn’t not possible that its wavelike behavior is also emergent? Couldn’t waves emerge from the discrete interactions between photons and, for instance, the material slits are cut into to create the familiar diffraction or interference patterns? QGD’s answer to the question is unequivocally “yes.”

We will show that the diffraction and refractions patterns of particles, including that of photons, are actually scattering patterns that can be fully explained in terms of gravitational interactions between photons and the experimental apparatus. Therefore, diffraction experiments with larger particles dot not show that they possess wave properties similar to that of light, but the opposite. That is, light shares the discrete structures of larger particles so that diffraction patterns of light, too, emerge from the discrete gravitational interactions between photons and the blocking material in which slits are cut. In other words, the diffraction and refraction patterns can be fully explained without invoking any intrinsic or fundamental wave properties. As a consequence, it can be argued that light is singularly corpuscular and the diffraction patterns and interference patterns are simply scattering patterns of discrete particles caused by gravitational interactions and the structure of quantum-geometrical space.

For those who haven’t read the book or earlier blogs, QGD proposes that all that is not space must be made of preons(+). That includes all particles we currently believe to be elementary, even photons. QGD also proposes that energy is an intrinsic property of preons(+) which is their kinetic energy. The energy of a particle or material structure is then equal to the number of preons(+) it contains (which also corresponds to its mass m) multiplied by c, the intrinsic energy of the preon(+), which gives the familiar E=mc.

Note that unlike Einstein’s interpretation, E=mc is not an equivalence equation, but a proportionality equation. In QGD, energy is an intrinsic property of matter and so cannot exist without it. So energy can never be converted into matter nor matter be converted into energy. Thus nuclear reactions are not events in which matter is converted into energy, but ones in which bound particles are separated and carry with them their intrinsic momentums. The mechanisms of nuclear reactions is explained in greater detail in Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics, but for those who have no time to read it, consider the following image.

Imagine two massive spheres in space, in absence of gravity, each equal in mass and moving at high speed but attached by a string forcing them to orbit each other. Imagine that the system consisting of orbiting spheres, taken as a whole, is at rest. Then, the momentum of the system is equal to zero. Now, imagine that we suddenly cut the string. Taken as a whole, the energy of the system does not change, but the spheres now move freely. The energy of each sphere hasn’t changed, but the sphere being free, they carry with them their momentum. Now, can we conclude that part of the mass of the spheres changed into energy? No, since they number of preons(+) that compose them is unchanged. And since we know that energy is an intrinsic property of preons(+), the energy of the sphere hasn’t changed either. This in essence is what happens in a nuclear reaction. Photons and other particles composing the nuclear material which are bounded into a structure become free as a result of a nuclear reaction and carry with them their momentum (in the special cases of photons and neutrinos, the momentum is equal to the energy). The number of preons(+) of a system is unchanged by nuclear reactions, so mass and energy do not change either. The only difference is that previously bounded particles are now free to interact with other systems, imparting them with their momentums.

Now back to our subject; the singularity of light.

When distance is very short, as when light passes through a physical medium or comes very close to it, applying the QGD motion equation shows that the interaction between photons and the matter of the apparatus produces diffraction patterns identical to those observed in diffraction experiments. Consider the simple apparatus below in which light from a single source passes near a massive structure (the blue circle) and hits the screen represented here by the black solid line.

Using the equations for gravitational interaction and motion through quantum-geometrical space (discrete space) found in Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics, we find that the deflection angle \theta  is given by \theta =\frac{G\left( a;\lambda  \right)}{c} . where G\left( a;b \right)  is the form of the QGD equation for gravity that applies at the fundamental scale (see Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics) .

From this, we see that the angle of deflection will depend upon the mass of the photon, that is, the number of preon{{s}^{\left( + \right)}} it contains.

We also know from the laws of motion described in Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics that though the magnitude of the momentum vector of a photon does not change, its direction does as per the equation above. But we have seen that any change of direction implies a change the momentum along that direction and that only change that are integer multiples of the mass of the object is allowed. That is, if \Delta \left\| {{{\vec{P}}}_{\lambda }} \right\|=G\left( a;\lambda  \right)=x{{m}_{\lambda }} where x\in {{N}^{+}} .

It follows that if photons are emitted from a single source, as in our apparatus, angles of deflection such at \frac{\left( x-1 \right){{m}_{\lambda }}}{c}<\theta <\frac{x{{m}_{\lambda }}}{c} will be forbidden .

The allowed deflection and forbidden region will contribute to produce diffraction patterns as shown in the following image and the fringe patterns we normally associate with wave interference.

 

As you can see, the diffraction patterns are produced using only the particle model of light, producing he patterns we attribute to a wave-like property. The width and spacing between the fringes will be a function of the mass of the photons and their distance from the massive structure. More massive photons will, according to the equation above, have larger the range of forbidden deflection angles and narrower fringes. Note that this result is only possible if space is quantum-geometrical as defined by QGD. Note that if a were the corner of a structure, then light would be bent around it in a manner consistent with our model and which behavior of light has been observed.

It is interesting to note that when we apply the same equation to photons passing through slits or double slits, they will invariably produce the diffractions patterns that have been observed and which we have come to associate with waves. The main difference with our above example is that in slit experiments, light passes through the massive structure and the photon course deflection is the net resultant of the gravitational interaction between the photon and the massive structure, which will depend on both shake and density of the material the slit(s) is(are) cut into. Applied to different shapes, the interaction equation predicts patterns consistent with observations. Below are some examples of observation consistent with the singularly corpuscular model of light.

diffraction pattern for single slit square aperture

 

diffraction pattern for single slit round aperture

 

single and double slit patterns

Refraction

When applied to photons moving through material, such as the glass of a prism, the QGD equations describe exactly the deviation of photons from their course. The magnitude of the deviation is, according to QGD, directly proportional to photon’s mass. So more massive photons, which are correctly associated with higher energy (bluer photons) will be deviated more than their lighter counterparts. The interaction with the material, in a prism or any other form, is the resultant of the gravitational interactions between the photon and material it passes through. The deviation will thus be towards the more massive part of the structure. For a prism, that will be the base (see image below).

Refraction is discussed in more detail in part 2 of this series.

The Notions of Frequency and Wavelength in the Light of Quantum-Geometry Dynamics

As we have seen, the patterns of diffraction and refraction of light are completely described by a model of light in which it is singularly corpuscular. If light, as QGD proposes, light is singularly corpuscular, that is, all wave-like behaviour are emergent, then we must reinterpret our observations of optical phenomena and revise, if not abandon altogether, the application of the concepts of frequency and wavelength to light.

In part 2 of this series of articles on QGD optics, we will discuss refraction of light. Part 3 will be on reflection of light and the photoelectric effect.

Please Read the post "Where to Start"

Where to Start

  Quantum-Geometry Dynamics  has progressed considerably since it was first introduced 15 years ago. As my understanding of the implications...