In my last post I talked about the shortfalls of the current theories of everything. Or even more specifically I talked about the inability of the Wikipedia pages of these theories to state anything that could be comprehended without resorting to highly complicated mathematics.
While in principle it could be true that nature is just too complicated to describe simply, once one has a simple explanation, then the idea of a complicated explanation, where “a brane is a physical object that generalizes the notion of a point particle to higher dimensions”.
What notable physicist tend to say about String theory can be summed up by the comment by Richard Muller
“I don’t consider string theory to be a true theory. And many string theorists would agree.
You will often hear physicists argue that “Intelligent Design” is not a theory, at least not in the same sense as Darwin’s Theory of Evolution or Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. A true theory, like the theory of electromagnetism or of quantum physics or of general relativity, must lead to testable predictions. To qualify as a theory, using a criterion developed by the great philospher of science, Karl Popper, the purported theory must be able to show a test that could, in principle, falsify it. This definition is widely accepted by physicists.
By these criteria, string theory is not yet a true theory. It makes predictions of phenomena that could substantiate the theory (discovery of extra dimensions and/or super symmetric particles) but none that could falsify it. In other words, it is possible to verify the theory experimentally, but not to disprove it.”
I think Richard Muller has a very strong point but misses the big problem. The possibility that the general idea of string theory is correct, but the specifics, developed by Edward Witten and company, are flawed.
He says:
“String theory is fascinating, but suffering deeply from the fact that it is so far ahead of experiment that it can’t truly be tested. There is no way to falsify it. I know of no “theory” in the history of physics that was similarly far ahead of testable results and yet proved, in the end, to be correct. So I am not placing any bets in favor of string theory.”
In my opinion Witten and others are a bit like Nicolaus Copernicus in his work “On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres”. The Wikipedia article says:
“Copernicus argued that the universe comprised eight spheres. The outermost consisted of motionless, fixed stars, with the Sun motionless at the center. The known planets revolved about the Sun, each in its own sphere, in the order: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. The Moon, however, revolved in its sphere around the Earth. What appeared to be the daily revolution of the Sun and fixed stars around the Earth was actually the Earth's daily rotation on its own axis."
Copernicus adhered to one of the standard beliefs of his time, namely that the motions of celestial bodies must be composed of uniform circular motions. For this reason, he was unable to account for the observed apparent motion of the planets without retaining a complex system of epicycles similar to those of the Ptolemaic system. Despite Copernicus' adherence to this aspect of ancient astronomy, his radical shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric cosmology was a serious blow to Aristotle's science—and helped usher in the Scientific Revolution.”
Fundamental forces are modern day epicycles. Well, with the exception of gravity. Just like the mathematics of celestial mechanics works relatively well with epicycles, there is very little in physics that requires one to doubt that there is something more fundamental behind the fundamental forces (apart from dark matter and dark energy). However, this is not the case in chemistry. Chemistry is just riddled with exceptions upon exceptions and most chemists don’t use fundamental forces in their daily lives in the lab.
And the way string theory is expressed, when interpreted via fundamental forces leads to the Frankenstein’s monster that it has become. However, the problem isn’t with string theory itself, but with the idea that charge, weak interaction or strong interaction are fundamental, rather than emergent phenomena. The idea that the problems with current string theory are an expression of the problems with the concept of fundamental forces is a bitter pill that very few, if any, has been willing to swallow.
However, if we take it that relativity is the only description of reality that does not rely on abstract concepts of forces, but on the movement of celestial bodies. As Wikipedia says:
“The theory is based on two postulates:
1. The laws of physics are invariant (that is, identical) in all inertial frames of reference (that is, frames of reference with no acceleration).
2. The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source or the observer.”
Thus, it seems to be safe to keep relativity as it is. On the other hand, the same cannot be said of the other fundamental forces. Conversely, we can introduce the revised postulates of the kinetic theory of gases:
1. All matter consists of solid particles with a diameter of Planck length.
2. All these particles are in constant motion at the speed of light.
3. Some of these particles are in direct contact and some collide with each other.
4. When collisions occur, these particles lose no kinetic energy; that is, the collisions are said to be perfectly elastic.
5. The particles exert no attractive or repulsive forces on one another. If not colliding, or being pushed, they move in straight lines.
So what do all of these postulates mean in action? Well, first of all there must be an initial state where light is knotted into matter with a rest mass. Or more specifically, light cannot ‘rest’, except if confined mass ‘at rest’. By far most of this matter at rest is hydrogen. Assuming all dark matter is hydrogen, most of hydrogen does not interact with light. I.e. most of hydrogen is present in supramolecular shells larger than 70 nm.
However, to begin with we’ll ignore dark matter and just consider ‘regular’ interacting supramolecular shells. If the shells would not rotate at all and if there were no other forces acting on them, the shells would form a closely packed lattice of the shells. However, as temperature is movement, we know this leads the supramolecular shells to rotate. And this rotation is dependent on temperature: the higher the temperature, the higher the rotational speed.
And how does this interplay between relativistic clustering (i.e. gravity) and rotation work? Without gravity, the supramolecular shells of hydrogen would expand to a size where they no longer interact with light. However, gravity keeps the supramolecular shells from opening and allows them to remain as clusters. If one considers Earth as the famous ball on the rubber sheet used to describe gravity, the description is much more literal than one could imagine. The ‘quantum field’ used in the mathematical modeling of gravity is not a ‘spooky action’, or ‘spooky interaction’. Rather it is the feature of hydrogen (or the ‘trace’ other elements found in space) existing as quantized sizes of supramolecular shells.
So now we have the mass of Earth allowing the existence of sufficient gravity that allows for the formation of sufficient pressure that matter can also exist as a liquid. Without pressure, the transition is (almost?) always directly from solid to gaseous.
The whole concept of a solid is rather interesting, as it relates to strings. The basic building block of the universe, hydrogen, is rather averse to solidifying. While it is possible to solidify hydrogen, it requires both a very low temperature and a high pressure. You won’t find this combination of conditions in space. That is, when gravity causes hydrogen to cluster, the cluster also heats up. In this paper, the formation of gas giants was studied and even a temperature of 50 K was considered low. To cut a long story short, without human intervention, you need heavier elements to get proper solids. These heavier elements form in nuclear fusion at the core of stars. Slightly heavier can be formed in ‘regular’ stars, but much heavier elements, such as iron are formed in supernovae.
Having gotten the known facts out of the way, it is rather clear that the accretion of hydrogen into a massive ball isn’t a simple thing at all. However, we can approach this from a different angle. Assuming that a sufficient amount of hydrogen gas has gathered together so that there is enough gravity to form a cluster of supramolecular shells, the size of these clusters is negatively correlated with temperature. Here, the temperature translates directly to the angular momentum of the supramolecular shells, which causes the supramolecular shells to separate from the cluster. The higher the temperature, the smaller the cluster. From the counterevidence paper we observe the simplest of these clusters: Waterman polyhedron in the shape of a truncated octahedron (shown below). While 15 of the 19 supramolecular shells in the cluster can be linked in a way that their rotation is ‘synchronous’, 4 supramolecular shells are misaligned. This misalignment can be sustained by the rotational energy of the supramolecular shells. Exactly how this takes place is a bit unclear, but most likely involves the cluster rotating as well as the individual supramolecular shells. When the whole cluster rotates, the volume taken up by supramolecular shells is minimized when the non-synchronously rotating supramolecular shells are pressed flat against the rotating cluster.
Here we get to the question of what happens if the temperature is not sufficiently high to keep the supramolecular shells in this simplest of clusters? Does the size of the cluster increase continuously as a function of temperature? It appears that this isn’t the case. Rather, these small clusters cluster again into larger cluster, this time with 38 clusters of 19 supramolecular shells (where the shell comprises of two spheres). Once the second-generation cluster has formed, the supramolecular shells making up the first-generation cluster rearrange in such a way that the number of asynchronous supramolecular shells is minimized. Exactly what percentage of the supramolecular shells in the 2nd generation cluster are asynchronous, is unclear to me, but it is obvious that the percentage is lower than in the 1st generation cluster. Following with this logic, it becomes quite obvious that the size of the cluster of supramolecular shells can grow quite big, if temperature is small enough (as seen in the image below, where the rearrangement in each step is omitted to emphasize the increase the scale in each step.
However, without pressure, these clusters will not be solid, or liquid, but rather comprise of gas. This gas is something observed by astronomers as nebulae, such as the famous horsehead nebula shown below.
When a sufficient amount of gas has accrued, gravity creates enough pressure to begin to break supramolecular shells into ever smaller shells. That is, the natural state of hydrogen is as ‘infinitely large’ supramolecular shells, and only the local conditions cause larger hydrogen shells to be split into smaller shells. Or while the initial thought experiment indicates that the clustering is a bottom-up phenomenon, it seems that considering the actual conditions of star formation, it appears that the initial formation requires a top-down phenomenon of splitting of supramolecular shells into smaller ones. The image below shows the basic process: When a large supramolecular shell is split into smaller supramolecular shells, the volume taken up by the same number of molecules is reduced
What this means is that when the gravity/pressure is sufficient, the simplified model of a solid shell doesn’t apply. At some point the supramolecular shell can be reduced to a string of molecules that form just four loops, as shown below (just the string shown, not the individual molecules).
At this point, something rather odd must take place for this still gas to transform into something else. The orbital that up until this point was best described as a string around two spheres must unravel. However, what the unraveled shape is, is not a clear-cut thing. My educated guess is that once the orbitals cannot rotate as the smallest loops, the unraveled loops ‘solidify’ within a supramolecular shell. That is, there still exist supramolecular shells of hydrogen, but they are no longer filled with (fractally) smaller supramolecular shells, but rather, the shell becomes filled with solid hydrogen. The supramolecular shell confining solid hydrogen will still rotate. This means that hydrogen is at a supercritical point at this stage. The only reason why the loops of hydrogen remain open is that the pressure of identical hydrogen-filled supramolecular shells keeps the shells from bursting open.
At this point things are starting to look a bit more ‘starlike’, in that the density of hydrogen begins to approach a bit closer to something that would allow fusion. However, we still need more pressure and more heat. Once a sufficient mass of hydrogen has gathered together, the gravity/pressure generates temperature, where the supramolecular shells filled with solid hydrogen split into ever smaller shells, but this time filled with solid hydrogen. At 15.5 million Kelvin of the solar core, the peak of the black body radiation is 190 pm, which equals the size of the spinning cluster of protons (hydrogen having released an electron in the process). Assuming that the 74 pm H-H distance reflects two spheres of an orbital, the diameter of 190 nm more or less reflects the size of a 19 proton Waterman cluster. However, as my previous post noted, at the pressure and density of the solar core, there are actually more than one proton stacked together at each location of the cluster.
It seems we have explained the formation of stars and the beginning of fusion just with gravity/relativity and the concept of strings moving at the speed of light. Now the challenge is to figure out what causes the discontinuity in the hydrogen concentration that gravity can cause the formation of (hydrogen) gas clouds and their further clustering into proto-stars and actual stars.
It seems that the formation of ever larger supramolecular shells of hydrogen might be counterintuitively the reason why some of the supramolecular shells of hydrogen split and concentrate. I assume that there is at least one ‘ever-growing’ supramolecular shell of hydrogen, that takes up an ever-larger volume as smaller shells fuse into larger shells. This large shell cannot incorporate smaller shells into it. Only the interaction with identically sizes shells, combined with free space for the fused shell to expand allows the formation of a larger shell. This non-interaction with the larger supramolecular shells causes the hydrogen that hasn’t formed large supramolecular shells to be separated from the large supramolecular shells. Exactly how this separation takes place is still unclear to me, but my hunch is that there is (at least one) enormous supramolecular shell of hydrogen that causes the rest of hydrogen to be spread as a disc between the two spherical shells. This is where all of the action takes place. It appears that as the merger of larger supramolecular shells involves more hydrogen atoms, this will force the volume required for this merger to be ‘stolen’ from the smaller supramolecular shells by forcing them to split.
The exact mechanism for the merger and splitting of the supramolecular shells can involve the absorption of electrons or photons, as observed in the spectral lines of hydrogen. However, this can be also be achieved by pressure or lack thereof. As the surface area (A) of a sphere has a square correlation with the radius (r) of the sphere, with A = 4πr², whereas the volume (V) of the sphere has a cubic correlation, with V = 4πr³/3, this means that when the more molecules are introduced into a constant volume, the only way to increase to fit the additional molecules is to split the existing supramolecular shells into smaller shells. However, this splitting, at least in the case of stable gases, such as oxygen and nitrogen, is quantized. That is, if the larger supramolecular shells aren’t broken in the process of the formation of the smaller supramolecular shells (as could be envisioned from the illustration below), but rather the larger supramolecular shells become filled with the smaller supramolecular shells.
Conversely, if one reduces the number of molecules in a constant volume (i.e. in a vacuum chamber), the inverse phenomenon takes place the smallest supramolecular shells are no longer constrained by the pressure of the neighboring supramolecular shells of the same size, as they are being pumped out of the chamber, which causes them to fuse into unravel and reform into larger shells (simplified scheme below).
I might be wrong, but to my understanding, the expansion of the universe is the process of supramolecular shells of hydrogen unraveling at a cosmic scale. And a hugely important part of this process is that the primary movement in all of this is not linear, but rotational. Thermal movement is always rotational and ‘quasi-linear’ movement can be achieved when the moving object is small enough to be influenced by the rotation of a larger object. This ‘quasi-linear’ movement, then again, is observed everywhere in space, as the orbiting of an object around a central body. Only light (and other electromagnetic radiation) that does not have a knotted orbital, is not directly influence by gravity. But even light is influenced ‘indirectly’ by this gravity, which is expressed as gravitational lensing.
So, if I understand my theory correctly, the ‘vacuum’ of space is filled first and foremost with supramolecular shells of hydrogen that are either as large as the space without other matter, or at least as large as the rotational diameter (defined by the wavelength of the blackbody radiation) allows. If we know the mass of visible hydrogen in space, we should be able to calculate the size distribution of the interacting supramolecular shells in space. Knowing the mass of dark matter, we should at least some kind of an estimate of the size distribution of larger, non-interacting supramolecular shells of hydrogen as well.
Again, if I understand my theory correctly, dark matter are supramolecular shells whose size is too large to interact with light, but smaller than the black body radiation of supramolecular shell at its temperature. However, if the supramolecular shell is larger than the black body radiation corresponding to its temperature (linked to its rotational speed), it will no longer emit black body radiation and the only way it interacts with its surroundings is by its rotation. These largest supramolecular shells of hydrogen are what is observed as dark energy.
It appears that while I was able to find the accurate geometry of the deuterium orbital, the true low hanging fruit of this 'revised string theory', is indeed in the explanation of dark matter and dark energy. However, to be able to write all of this into a manuscript, I'll have to find the estimates of the hydrogen concentration in the solar system, and the most accurate estimates of dark matter and dark energy to be able to find numerical correlations with the theory and the known observations. Like I've noted before, there are no qualitative natural sciences. The only way to get a manuscript under peer review is to take a physical observation and make a mathematical model to explain this observation. The good thing about dark matter and dark energy is that there are no explanations for these that would be accepted by the general scientific community.
The only thing close to assuming hydrogen to be the source of dark matter and dark energy is the concept of supersymmetry.
In a supersymmetric theory the equations for force and the equations for matter are identical. In theoretical and mathematical physics, any theory with this property has the principle of supersymmetry (SUSY). Dozens of supersymmetric theories exist.
However, in practice, this revised string theory will be one more to the dozens of existing supersymmetric theories. The really big difference to the existing theories is that for me, quantum mechanics is an emergent phenomenon of the revised string theory, which simplifies everything. But only time will tell whether I am right or wrong.
Kommentare