Jan. 25 - Quantum Gravity, Einstein's Errors and the Cosmic Ray Proton‏

Dear Friends,

Click the link if you can't access the links.

http://blog.hasslberger.com/2010/01/quantum_gravity_einsteins_erro.html#more

Be Well.

David

Quantum Gravity, Einstein's Errors and the Cosmic Ray Proton

Shifting the paradigm of physics is what Vertner Vergon would like to do. Using quantum theory, Vergon proposes an actual mechanism for how gravity physically works, something neither Newton nor Einstein could quite bring themselves to do.

Loop quantum gravity - artwork by slobo777

And talking about Einstein ... Vergon is one of the few people who clearly point out what are special relativity's logical inconsistencies and how they will de-throne the theory as logically inconsistent. There goes a mainstay of physics.

Vertner Vergon's introduction to his paradigm changing notes:

A PARADIGM SHIFT


GRAVITY, RELATIVITY, ENERGY, QUESTIONS

Three subjects are in the forefront of today's research.

The present paradigm cannot present solutions to them. The four Attachments present solutions and can be considered a paradigm shift.

"Gravity" is actually Quantum Gravity.

By way of analogy, one can read the face of a clock, but that does not tell him how the mechanism works.

Newton mathematically described the face of the clock but he did not have a clue as to HOW it worked. So you could say he mathematically described the laws of gravity, but that is certainly not the whole story.

Einstein refined the mathematical description -- and then ATTEMPTED to describe the workings, the HOW of gravity.

To me, curved space (empty or not) with geodesics is NOT a PHYSICAL description of how gravity works.

By contrast, I have developed a quantum gravity thesis that tells HOW the force of gravity is created, HOW it is transmitted, WHY the quantities are what they are, and shows why the mechanics of gravity creates an ILLUSION of action at a distance and mutual attraction.

If you will read it (QUANTUM GRAVITY) you will see the difference between Einstein's "explanation" and mine. Judge for yourself.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Einstein developed his special relativity in typical mathematical physicist style - and made a grievous error in the interpretation, a typical problem in mathematical physics often leading to bizarre conclusions.

The second attachment clearly and definitively explains this error and defines the result.

(ERRORS OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY)

* * * * * * * * * *

Gamma ray energy is bad enough, but cosmic ray energy dwarfs it. Tesla, the discoverer of cosmic rays (protons), said they travel faster than the speed of light, but he was not able to say just what that was.

The answer is in the third attachment. (COSMIC RAY PROTON VELOCITY)

* * * * * * * * * * *

The fourth attachment is "questions". They speak for themselves.

(Questions are reproduced below)

Comments are welcome (provided of course you have read the attachments through).

Vertner Vergon

vertvergon (at) scientist (dot) com

(substitute the proper symbols to write Vertner Vergon an email)

For those of you who want to get deeper into the argument, there is also a book written by Vertner Vernon that can be downloaded as a PDF file:

ON THE QUANTUM AS A PHYSICAL ENTITY

- - -

Questions

I have some burning questions that I hope some of you gentlemen who are more advanced than I, can answer.

To help, I will preface each with my understanding of the situation.

According to the Special Theory, momentum is

m v

--------.

R

( I use R for the Lorentz transform.)

I understand - and I think all agree - that mass is velocity invariant. Also, as R goes to zero as a limit, m v goes to infinity as a limit.

Now if v is limited to c, and m is invariable - how can m v go to infinity?

[ My own answer is that v goes to infinity - it has to. So c is not a limit. Either the equation is invalid or super c is possible. ]

My question is, which is it?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Einstein's equation for energy is

1

E = ( ---- - 1 ) mc²

R

Now this looks good except it is dodging the issue.

Just as valid - or maybe more so, it should be written

m

.E = ( ---- - m ) c²

R

c² cannot be modified by R because it is a constant, so this is the only way.

m is also invariant! But according to the equation, m increases to infinity. This, of course, is the old specter of relative mass - which we know is invalid. The only alternative is to declare the equation invalid.

But this leaves the question, how do we express a valid equation for energy?

I have developed one that gives the identical result:

v²

E = m ------- .

R+R²

m is invariable - and once again v goes to infinity - so super c is possible.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Despite the fact that for radiant energy, Einstein wrote the equation m = L/c² which clearly means photons have mass, there are still individuals who insist that photons are mass-less. (I think Einstein used L instead of E for energy to distinguish between the energy for ponderous particles versus the energy of radiation.)

What bothers me is that it is agreed photons have momentum and energy. Every equation for momentum or kinetic energy has two elements: mass and velocity.

Take momentum, if you remove the m, you have only velocity - a velocity of nothing.

The same for energy.

So my question is, how do you describe momentum and energy without mass?

I have been told (as an answer) that the equation for radiation is E = h nu.

But the individuals failed to see that h is a unit of action - and there are two ways to describe action - energy times time, or momentum times distance. There is no doubt that h has mass. In fact it is 7.37203854 x 10^-48

gr.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

COLLIDERS

My understanding is that electrons, protons and neutrons are composed of standing resonant group waves. (That's why they all have frequencies.) Each wave consists of a quantum sized Coulomb field.

Now if you took two Limoge vases and smashed them together at high speed, they would shatter into a myriad of small shards. Although these shards are parts of the vases, they are not "elemental" in that the the vases were not assembled by their use.

I see a direct analogy in smashing, say protons, together. What you get are shards of group waves that are not in resonance - and so they immediately throw off waves until they reach a lower resonant state. This process is called "decay" -- and the shards are misconstrued as "elemental particles" on which some uncalled for importance is placed. I see that the misplaced meaning of their existence creates a diversion from true understanding as well as a waste of time, money and manpower. In short, I see that as a dead end blind alley..

So my question is, how can these shards of unstable group waves explain the creation of the universe and all the other claims laid to them? (dark matter, etc.)

Another thing, the gain in mass as particles are accelerated is asserted to prove Special Relativity. (even though it is agreed mass is velocity invariant). Anyone operating an accelerator knows the mass increase is the mass absorbed from the impelling electromagnetic driving force, and results in bremsstrahlung. c as a limit is because particles cannot be driven faster than the driving force.

Another thing: it is also claimed that the particles undergo time dilation, also proving special Relativity.

The fact is the determination of time dilation is achieved by "observing" the particle as it passes a detector.

Ultimately what is detected is frequency. Ives & Stillwell did experiments that showed particles moving orthogonally to an observer gave off a reduced frequency.

By some strange coincidence the magnitude of the reduction is identical to Einstein's time dilation. As the particle is measured it is passing orthogonally to the detector.

(The coincidence may be in the way Einstein calculated time dilation - which incidentally is wrong. Proof is that he claimed an approaching clock runs slow. But empiricism shows approaching clocks - a cesium clock for example - run fast.)

Question - How do you explain that discrepancy?

Vertner Vergon
November 2009
vertvergon (at) scientist (dot) com
Lancaster, California