SciPhysicsForums.com

For those interested in the axiomatizatoin of physics, discreteness of space and its consequences. Subtopics discussing specific domain of application may be added if required.

Excerpt from An Axiomatic Approach to Physics.
Quantum-geometry dynamics: a theory derived from a minimal set of axioms that 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 introduce 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.

Document available at http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... o-physics/

Daniel, I'd rather discuss just your idea of field mediated instantaneous interactions as per:
http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... eractions/
http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... ctions.pdf
It's clear you endorse, as supporting your theory, the claims made by the Italian team first referenced above:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.114 ... 015-3355-3
Which claim is the absolute 'rigidity' of Coulomb field of charges. Implying that arbitrary motion of a given charge instantaneously effects all space, via it's Coulomb 1/r^2 radial field. Given presumably neither they nor you dispute finite propagation delay for radiation fields, could you please indicate precisely which part or parts of the E field expressions for Hertzian dipole radiator, shown in linked article below, you disagree with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_an ... ian_dipole
I'm referring to the full expressions, not the simplified far-field one shown later there. You can include discussion of H fields if you wish.

Hi Q-reeus,

The reason I started the discussion with my link to An Axiomatic Approach to Physics is that the entire theory is built from a minimal set of axioms necessary to describe dynamic systems. All descriptions of physical phenomenons are different from those conventionally used. The notions of distance, momentum, speed, mass as derived from the axiom set (from first principle) follow naturally from the axiom set and differ from conventional descriptions and the equations used formalize these descriptions.

So it is not that QGD disagrees with the usual descriptions of what is a magnetic field for instance or the Coulomb force. It provides an entirely different descriptions of these based on its axiom set. The description of the magnetic field and interactions with the magnetic field derived from the axiom set make no use of conventional parameters, yet their description of their behaviour is consistent with observation. QGD description and equation also allow for distinct falsifiable predictions. One of these predictions was that the Coulomb field is instantaneous which a few years later was supported by the experiment I refer to. None of the currently admitted theories can explain, much less predict such a result. Of course, more experiments are needed but in the end, nature will have last say.

For a brief discussion of the experiment, see link below.

http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... -dynamics/

All that to say, no theory can be evaluated from within the framework of another theory when they are based on mutually exclusive axiom sets. There is often not even possible to translate the equations from one into that of another. We can approximate, but even that is difficult. For instance all equations that are time dependant have no meaning in QGD simply because it considers time to be a purely relational concept allows us to compare events to cyclic and periodic systems. If time is not physical, as I propose, then the notion of speed, to give one example, takes an entirely different physical meaning.

I don't think there is any way around familiarizing oneself with the basics of QGD as presented in Axiomatic Approach to Physics to understand how it applies to any particular domain. For more detailed explanation, there is also Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics (but that is a rather long read and is under revision at this point.

Once familiarized minimally with the notions presented in An Axiomatic Approach to Physics and its description of interactions, you'll find examples of how it is applies in the articles below which will also hint to out they apply to observed electromagnetic effects.

http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... sequences/
http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... ts-part-1/
http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... ts-part-2/

Sorry I couldn't provide a succinct answer to your question, but it not possible to do so when using such different languages as that of current physics and QGD.

Daniel wrote:

Sorry I couldn't provide a succinct answer to your question, but it not possible to do so when using such different languages as that of current physics and QGD.

Daniel, with due respect, please just answer the question in my first post. It's important to check the consistency of what is evidently a key plank in your paradigm - instantaneous propagation speed of fields - as determined 'by ordinary means'. That's what your endorsed Italian team claim. Let's see if it happens to be a strong point or the weak link in your chain of reasoning.

Q-reeus, In answer to your question,

See section titled Preonic Fields and the Electromagnetic Effect, page 59 of Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics at http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... -dynamics/ .

As you will see, from the axiom set we derived a different description of the electromagnetic effects which mathematical formalization requires none of the instrument dependant or arbitrary parameters which may or may not correspond to actual single physical properties.

The models derived are much simpler than those currently used while remaining consistent with observations.

DanielLBurnstein wrote:Q-reeus, In answer to your question,

See section titled Preonic Fields and the Electromagnetic Effect, page 59 of Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics at http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... -dynamics/ .

As you will see, from the axiom set we derived a different description of the electromagnetic effects which mathematical formalization requires none of the instrument dependant or arbitrary parameters which may or may not correspond to actual single physical properties.

The models derived are much simpler than those currently used while remaining consistent with observations.

Daniel - went through that section but could nowhere find any mention of speed of EM interaction. For two reasons I assume it is infinite in your theory:

1: Your endorsement of e.g. Italian teams findings and interpretation as per links given earlier.
2: You make it clear EM interactions are really a form of gravitational interaction, and it's explicitly stated early in that above linked to article that gravitational interactions are instantaneous. Ipso facto, so are EM interactions.

Let me make my position clear. Standard classical EM, based on Maxwell's Eqns/Lienard-Wiechert potentials, explicitly predicts all EM effects propagate at c, never instantaneously. In the special case of charge in uniform motion, 'rigidity' of quasi-Coulomb field is a trivial consequence of Lorentz transformations between inertial frames. What appears as motion of charge in one frame will be seen as motion of an observer through the field of a static charge in another frame. It would thus be extraordinary and surprising if the quasi-Coulomb field were other than 'rigid' in such case. Where things get interesting is when accelerated motion is involved - such as happens for a Hertzian dipole radiator (that link again): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_an ... ian_dipole

Note carefully - all E-field terms are modulated by phase factor exp(-ikr). Hence all components experience propagation delay - including the 1/r^3 quasi-static and 1/r^2 'induction' components, not just the 1/r radiation parts. The radial (i.e. longitudinal) terms correspond to the so-called virtual photon fields. In another forum I quizzed a member versed in both GR and QFT, as to just how he could reconcile the foregoing with his (standard GR) claim a 'charged BH' made sense because 'infinite propagation speed' applied for 'virtual photons' which are presumed to mediate a static E field. Hence such virtual photons supposedly have no problem getting out from inside the BH 'event horizon' where source charges reside (in some sense anyway). It was disappointing but not a big surprise he refused to answer.

There has been a huge amount of near-field measurements done on antennas over the decades, but just possibly only amplitudes not phase-delays were ever measured. I can offer you a simple experimental setup that would settle the matter unequivocally, but want your feedback as to whether I have given a fair deduction above as to your position.

1: Your endorsement of e.g. Italian teams findings and interpretation as per links given earlier.
2: You make it clear EM interactions are really a form of gravitational interaction, and it's explicitly stated early in that above linked to article that gravitational interactions are instantaneous. Ipso facto, so are EM interactions.

What is instantaneous is the polarization of the preonic field, which is caused by gravitational interactions which, from QGD’s equation for gravity, can be up to 10^116 greater than gravity at large scales. This interaction between charged particles and the preonic field is instantaneous but not the motion of particles affected by the interaction. Nothing moves faster than the speed of light. This is a direct consequence of the structure of space as described by QGD. See http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... -of-light/ . Thus there is no contradiction between QGD and the vast amount of observation in regards to the speed of photons. QGD is in agreement with the data, but not the theoretical interpretation of the data.
The rest of your position is classical and, as all classical physics, assumes that space is continuous and time is physical. But what if, as QGD proposes, space is quantum-geometrical?
For one, space itself would have structure and the position of a particle or structure within it would be absolute, thus frame independent. Also, momentum and speed in quantum-geometrical space are intrinsic and as such also are frame independent. This is discussed in both An Axiomatic Approach to Physics and Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics.
Also distinct from classical electrodynamics is that light is singularly corpuscular. There is no wave-particle duality in QGD. Of course, QGD must explain the apparent wave behaviour of particles which it does (see section of on optics).
If QGD is correct then the classical equations are only approximations of discrete interactions in discrete space.
Other consequences of QGD. No time implies no event horizon. Discreteness of space implies no singularity, though supermassive structures are possible but have finite density. The interactions between particles are explained without resorting to virtual photons or other virtual particles.
That said, if you take time to understand the basics as presented in An Axiomatic Approach to Physics, you will see how Euclidian space emerges from discrete space and how gravity and other interactions follow naturally from its axiom set. But don’t expect to understand by merely glancing at the equations. It takes a little while.

I notice you say space has a quantum nature. So my first question is: How is the Universe expanding? It would seem that *new* space would have to be added or some process creates new space. My second question concerns the Euclidean nature of your theory. Spacetime near a massive object induces a curve in the trajectory of anything within its influence. The conventional explanation is non Euclidean geometry..

Thanks Brad Johnson

I notice you say space has a quantum nature.

I don’t know if space quantum in nature. What I’m trying to do is explore the consequences of it being so. If space is quantum, more specifically quantum-geometrical as described An Axiomatic Approach to Physics and Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics, then there predictable consequences.

So my first question is: How is the Universe expanding? It would seem that *new* space would have to be added or some process creates new space.

If space is discrete as I described, the quantum of space, preons(-), must obey the law of conservation and therefore exist in a large but finite numbers. So if the universe is expanding than new preons(-) would need to somehow come into existence. But that is forbidden by the axiom set from which I develop QGD.

So it would appear at first glance that the idea of quantum-geometrical space and observations do not fit. In actuality, QGD fits the data from observations that support an expanding universe but it does agree with the theoretical interpretation of the data.

The notion that the universe is expanding is based on the classic interpretation of the redshift and blueshift effects, but if QGD is correct and redshift and blueshift effects are dependent on the stage of evolution of the photon sources.

This is explained in my article titled Mapping the Universe which you can read at
http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... -universe/

My second question concerns the Euclidean nature of your theory. Spacetime near a massive object induces a curve in the trajectory of anything within its influence. The conventional explanation is non Euclidean geometry.

QGD considers time to be non-physical so it excludes the idea of space-time. Also, though it proposes that space plays a dynamic role in the effect we call gravity (which role is embedded in the equation for gravity), space remains Euclidean. This means that the geodesics of general relativity would be trajectory paths as they are affected by gravity (see laws of motion in An Axiomatic Approach to Physics).

That said, QGD, if correct, must explain observations that support predictions of special and general relativity. An Axiomatic Approach to Physics shows how key predictions of general relativity are derived naturally from the axiom set of QGD yet allow for predictions that are unique to QGD. One question often asked is how does then QGD explain the decay of orbits of binary systems which support general relativity prediction of the existence of gravitational waves? If interested, you’ll find the explanation at

http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... y-systems/

And if you are interested in the cosmology derived from QGD's axiom set see

http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... -dynamics/

Of course, QGD is very new and needs to be put to the test. My hope is that astronomers and astrophysicists use QGD’s equations in their calculations to interpret existing data and make predictions or test some of the predictions I already made.

Thanks for the excellent and relevant questions.

Hi Daniel,
You said something in the other thread, and I want to challenge you with your own words:

Daniel wrote:To quote Einstein:
“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

Eistein never said that, but I'm not six years old either. So please explain as simply and in as few words as possible what the central principle of your Quantum-geometry dynamics theory is.

To give you an example, here is Einstein's own special principle of relativity:

Albert Einstein wrote:Special principle of relativity: If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K.
— Albert Einstein: The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, Part A, §1

The quote I mentioned was misquoted from very similar and distinct quotes by De Broglie, David Hilbert and Rutherford. So it wasn't Einstein but that doesn't change the truth or relevance of the misquoted quote and to what I believe.

I used "6 year old" because it was part of the quote. Not the age I would have chosen. QGD can be explained to someone with no more than high school level physics. I have successfully explained it to 15-16 year old. But though it is easily accessible, I don't believe or have ever claimed that it can be explained in a few words or sentences. The least I was able to do is 33 page with An Axiomatic Approach to Physics, which is pretty good considering how much ground it covers.

If I were to use the smallest possible description, I would say that QGD is the theory derived from a minimal set of axioms that can described dynamic systems, but that only means something to someone who understand the subject.

That said, my main concerned in that other thread was about the use of insults and name calling when someone disagrees. Resorting to insults and name calling is the weapon of those at loss of intelligent arguments.

DanielLBurnstein wrote:The quote I mentioned was misquoted from very similar and distinct quotes by De Broglie, David Hilbert and Rutherford. So it wasn't Einstein but that doesn't change the truth or relevance of the misquoted quote and to what I believe.

I used "6 year old" because it was part of the quote. Not the age I would have chosen. QGD can be explained to someone with no more than high school level physics. I have successfully explained it to 15-16 year old. But though it is easily accessible, I don't believe or have ever claimed that it can be explained in a few words or sentences. The least I was able to do is 33 page with An Axiomatic Approach to Physics, which is pretty good considering how much ground it covers.

If I were to use the smallest possible description, I would say that QGD is the theory derived from a minimal set of axioms that can described dynamic systems, but that only means something to someone who understand the subject.

That said, my main concerned in that other thread was about the use of insults and name calling when someone disagrees. Resorting to insults and name calling is the weapon of those at loss of intelligent arguments.

Hi Daniel,
You should realize that there is a lot of history behind the other thread, going back many years, so don't assume that the tone of the title/discussion is unprecedented. My intention here is not to litigate the what is happening in the other thread but to try to understand what QGD is about. You did not describe the central principle of QGD in your response though, you said nothing about what the central principle of that theorem is. Assume that I'm the president of a wealthy foundation which funds basic foundational research in physics and you've just met me in an elevator and my floor is coming up in 30 seconds. So please humor me and explain as simply as you can what QGD is all about.

I don't think "QGD is the theory derived from a minimal set of axioms that can described dynamic systems" tells anyone anything about QGD. See for example Einstein's special prinicple of relativity I quoted. It tells you a principle of the theory, not a meta description like yours.

To be fair, there is a lot of implicit physics in Einstein's description. If the implicit physics was new, he would have had to make it explicit and that would have been a much longer description.

That said, I just remembered that I did write a short introduction to QGD which I titled QGD in a Nuthshell. Since the approach is axiomatic (which is pretty much starting from scratch), everything had to be described explicitly.

see http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... -nutshell/

DanielLBurnstein wrote:To be fair, there is a lot of implicit physics in Einstein's description. If the implicit physics was new, he would have had to make it explicit and that would have been a much longer description.

That said, I just remembered that I did write a short introduction to QGD which I titled QGD in a Nuthshell. Since the approach is axiomatic (which is pretty much starting from scratch), everything had to be described explicitly.

see http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/ ... -nutshell/

Hi Daniel, thanks for the "nutshell", I think it summarizes your theory, though without meaning to be dense, it is not an effective elevator pitch to point at a website. You should be telling me something that is brief, clear and exciting and new.

In short, based on what I can glean so far, your QGC is based on the principle that All of space is a lattice of elementary particles called preons, and all of matter and other physical phenomena are emergent simply due to interactions of these elementary particles with each other.

I bet you even a 6 year old can understand that.

That's really good. I mean it. You are way better than I am at summarizing the basic concepts of QGD. The only change I would make would be to include preons(+), which are the fundamental particles of matter. How about

All of space is a lattice of elementary particles called preons(-) and all of matter composed of preons(+). All other physical phenomena are emergent simply due to interactions of these two types of elementary with each other ?

Thanks for the summary. Who should I credit it to?

DanielLBurnstein wrote:That's really good. I mean it. You are way better than I am at summarizing the basic concepts of QGD. The only change I would make would be to include preons(+), which are the fundamental particles of matter. How about

All of space is a lattice of elementary particles called preons(-) and all of matter composed of preons(+). All other physical phenomena are emergent simply due to interactions of these two types of elementary with each other ?

Thanks for the summary. Who should I credit it to?

You might want to specify what type of lattice it is.

DanielLBurnstein wrote:That's really good. I mean it. You are way better than I am at summarizing the basic concepts of QGD. The only change I would make would be to include preons(+), which are the fundamental particles of matter. How about

All of space is a lattice of elementary particles called preons(-) and all of matter composed of preons(+). All other physical phenomena are emergent simply due to interactions of these two types of elementary with each other ?

Thanks for the summary. Who should I credit it to?

Hi Daniel, no credit needed, it is your theory not mine. The details about preons(+) and preons(-) are "details" which you find out when you go deeper, adding them to your special principle simply distract IMHO. But it's your theory so you are free to do what you like.

FrediFizzx wrote:You might want to specify what type of lattice it is.

Fred,
I wonder too what kind of lattice it is. Lattices are close to my heart.

Daniel,
In your initial diagrams, you have a hexagonal lattice packing. Why? Given that lattices are asymmetric, does your theory predict any detectable asymmetry in space? If not, why not? It seems to me if you stick to the hexagonal packing, and your definition of "distance", you will observe differences in speed of light for example in different directions.