Unification of quantum mechanics and gravity...

RideFree

Diamond Member
Jul 25, 2001
3,433
2
0
Dear Colleague,


Perhaps you are wondering what happened to "The Many Directions of Time" and whether you will ever get your prerelease copy as I promised. Don't worry, you will. The following summary paragraph (abstract) from my latest paper gives you an idea of what I have been up to during the last few months.


--------------------------------------------------
The solution to the problem of quantum gravity must build an empirically verifiable bridge between the universe observed at subatomic scale (~10^-15 m) and at cosmic scale (~10^25 m). Quantum mechanics describes the underlying structure of matter and energy as quantized waves, while general relativity describes the gravitational field as a large-scale wave in the unified fabric of space and time. Fundamentally, gravity must be described as the superposition of quantized waves in spacetime. The quantized wave components of the gravitational field require an energy source, so the key to solving the problem of quantum gravity is to identify this energy source and to provide an experimental means of verifying the synthesis between this energy source and the effects of gravity. This discussion identifies the energy source of the gravitational field and makes a related empirical prediction that can be performed by an appropriately equipped laboratory. In addition to verifying the quantum energy source of the gravitational field, a positive result of the proposed experiment, confirming the prediction, solves the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. The measurement problem refers to the puzzling dichotomy between the modelled statistical behaviour of particles and the definite physical measurements of their behaviour. The unification of quantum mechanics and gravity is considered to be the supreme problem in the history of science.
--------------------------------------------------


This is a paper I have just recently submitted to a well-known scientific journal for review. I expect to hear back in Q1 2008. I also expect to give a talk about it at the April 2008 APS Meeting in St. Louis. This is related to discussion that previously appeared in "The Many Directions of Time." It occurred to me that I had the right general idea about this, but that my (prior) ideas were ultimately wrong because something essential was missing. I really struggled with this one, but I found the missing thing. As one may expect, the answer was very simple, so simple, that it eluded me for many months. However, I am now confident that this problem is solved. You are al familiar with the distinction between the electric and magnetic fields. --- It turns out that in quantum mechanics there is a similar distinction between the matter wave and ANOTHER complementary wave that exists, but which has been heretofore unknown and a critical missing element in the theory of quantum mechanics. The proposed experiment uses off-the shelf hardware and I expect it to be run by a number of labs who have that hardware and the related expertise within Q1. I am now integrating the ideas from this paper into the book (thus rewriting a few chapters.) When that is done, you will get your book.


Wishing you all a happy and successful New Year,

Alexander F. Mayer


Jay Pritzker Fellowship
Theoretical Physics & Cosmology

Dr. Mayer

Edited: I am most certainly not Dr. Mayer. However, he kindly considers me a friend.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
So he's going to tell us the source of the energy for gravity along with proof? Antigravity cars here we come!!
 

RideFree

Diamond Member
Jul 25, 2001
3,433
2
0
From one of Dr. Mayer's previous e-mails...
According to the modern relativistic theory of gravity, the warping of spacetime clearly requires a light-speed signal (i.e., a wave) to emanate from a body in order to effect the gravitational field. This wave, which is distributed throughout space must have a quantifiable ENERGY that is distinct from what we now call the "total energy" localized with mass.

My answer to this...
This wave, which is distributed throughout space with a quantifiable ENERGY that is distinct from what we now call the "total energy" localized with mass must = Electromagnetic Ether = Quantum Weak Theory.

i.e.The answer to Quantum Mechanics distillation of the Weak theory must lie in the "The wave" originating from the electromagnetic ether given off by the hypothetical "body".

(Yes! I know that ether is an outdated notion.)
In the late 19th century, luminiferous aether (or ether), meaning light-bearing aether, was the term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light.[1] The word aether stems via Latin from the Greek a????, from a root meaning to kindle, burn, or shine. It signified the substance thought in ancient times to fill the upper regions of space, beyond the clouds.
Later theories including special relativity were formulated without the concept of aether. Today the aether is regarded as a superseded scientific theory.
This last quote from Wiki.....
 

firewolfsm

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2005
1,848
29
91
He's not the first guy to think he's solved the problem, theories come up and get shot down all the time, I hope he's onto something.

Also, if we do solve it, what comes next?
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
That's not much of an abstract. He spent the entire time telling a bunch of physicists (since it was submitted to the APS - American Physical Society) what the unification is all about, something they already know, rather than describing his theory. He never mentioned anything about his theory, nor the experiment that supposedly confirms it. I'm not sure if I'll still be in St. Louis to go to the conference, but it would be interesting to know what his theory really is. There are a plethora of theories that currently unify everything, but there isn't yet any experimental evidence to make or break them. In the next 10 years or so, quite a few of these should be tested and we'll know a lot more about what's going on.
 

bharatwaja

Senior member
Dec 20, 2007
431
0
0
I dont understand... laws of Thermodynamics says any object or body constantly strives to be in the lowest energy state possible to attain stability.... we know that is true and accepted.... if gravity is has an energy source then why does it absorb energy from other bodies by attracting them? my point is, bodies lose energy when falling under the gravity of earth, how can the earth's gravity have an energy source ans still absorb energy?

Its jus off the top of my mind... I may be looking like a fool here, excuse me if that is the case, but an explanation is appreciated...
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: bharatwaja
I dont understand... laws of Thermodynamics says any object or body constantly strives to be in the lowest energy state possible to attain stability.... we know that is true and accepted.... if gravity is has an energy source then why does it absorb energy from other bodies by attracting them? my point is, bodies lose energy when falling under the gravity of earth, how can the earth's gravity have an energy source ans still absorb energy?

Its jus off the top of my mind... I may be looking like a fool here, excuse me if that is the case, but an explanation is appreciated...
A body doesn't "lose" any energy falling towards another body. Gravitational potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy.
 

bharatwaja

Senior member
Dec 20, 2007
431
0
0
Yes that is true... but on impact the kinectic energy is lost, which (hypothetically) must be absorbed by the surface of the body (object) which causes the gravitational field... Why is this energy absorbed? if it is an energy source, how can it absorb energy...?

Again Sorry if that was completely idiotic (i have a tendency while askin such doubts/ideas) :D
 

Nathelion

Senior member
Jan 30, 2006
697
1
0
Upon impact, the energy would typically be converted to heat.

I think ( please correct me if I'm wrong) that the "energy" he's talking about here already exists, it doesn't "come into existence" as such. The fact that there is separation between massive objects means that there is gravitational potential energy. Where did this energy come from? If you separated every mass (infinitely far) from every other mass, then all of this "gravity energy" would be manifested as potential energy.
Umm... I'm actually in way over my head. I'll stop talking now.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Nathelion
Upon impact, the energy would typically be converted to heat.

I think ( please correct me if I'm wrong) that the "energy" he's talking about here already exists, it doesn't "come into existence" as such. The fact that there is separation between massive objects means that there is gravitational potential energy. Where did this energy come from? If you separated every mass (infinitely far) from every other mass, then all of this "gravity energy" would be manifested as potential energy.
Umm... I'm actually in way over my head. I'll stop talking now.
This is pretty much correct. Upon impact, kinetic energy is transformed into strain energy and/or heat due to friction. Some strain energy will eventually be recovered to the impacting object if it bounces. If it bounces to its original height (which it never does in practice), then the impact is said to be perfectly elastic. If, instead, it bounces to some fraction of its initial height, then the lost energy is absorbed through viscous or plastic (or even viscoplastic) mechanisms, eventually leading to its conversion to heat.
 

RideFree

Diamond Member
Jul 25, 2001
3,433
2
0
Alexander Franklin Mayer: Jay Pritzker Fellow: Theoretical Physics and Cosmology
This is in need of it's own thread on/in these forums (Highly Technical).
Dr. Mayer asks,
What can you do to support me?

* Link to jaypritzker.org from your Website or blog.
* Discuss these papers on physics, mathematics and other Internet forums.
* Contact reputable science journalists and ask them to investigate my work.
* Tell fellow students or professional colleagues about this Website and these papers.
He has done this as a result of a form of "blacklisting" to-wit:
Within a year after the publication of Dr. Halton Arp's Seeing Red 1998...
to quote Dr. Arp's preface,
"The present book is sure to outrage many academic scientists. Many of my professional friends will be greatly pained. Why then do I write it? First, everyone has to tell the truth as they see it, especially about important things. The fact that the majority of professionals are intolerant of even opinions which are discordant makes change a necessity. Those friends of mine who also struggle to get the mainstream of astronomy back on track mostly feel that presenting evidence and championing new theories is sufficient to cause change, and that it is improper to criticize an enterprise to which they belong and value highly. I disagree, in that I think if we do not understand why science is failing to self-correct, it will not be possible to fix it."

"This, then, is the crisis for the reasonable members of the profession. With so many alternative, contradictory theories, many of them fitting the evidence very badly, abandoning the accepted theory is a frightening step into chaos. At this point, I believe we must look for salvation from the non-specialists, amateurs and interdisciplinary thinkers-those who form judgments on the general thrust of the evidence, those who are skeptical about any explanation, particularly official ones, and above all are tolerant of other people's theories."

Poor Dr. Arp. He was granted Persona non grata by the academic community of his peers and banished (about 1999 or 2000) to obscurity's never-never-land. (Cosmological Siberia) :D:D:D

"Blacklisting" chronicle continues in the second post and moves to the present day...
 

RideFree

Diamond Member
Jul 25, 2001
3,433
2
0
The disappearance of jaypritzker.org from Google searches in Feb. ?08

Searching for ?Alexander F Mayer? as done here [ AltaVista MSN Yahoo! ] one finds that jaypritzker.org is a #1 hit, as was the identical case for Google until February 2008. It is difficult to understand how jaypritzker.org is a top hit for my name on AltaVista, MSN and Yahoo!, yet nonexistent on Google, the world?s best and most-used (i.e., default) search engine. (Now, repeat the search without the middle initial, which is how someone would perform a typical Google search to find out who I am.) Given common assumptions, what immediate conclusions will the typical person draw from this page of results and how can they be expected to react? ? Some have suggested that this Website has been blacklisted by the long arm of academic politics, but this would violate the Google Code of Conduct. I am confident that this is only a temporary technical problem that will soon be remedied.

Someone who knew about my work contacted me some time ago with a very cynical perspective (see the third post in this opening salvo - my comments, not Dr. Mayer's). I don?t think this is going to happen in the long run, because there is too much competition and free flow of information in today?s word. People simply cannot afford to ignore a successful new idea, because others will not. Progress in science is rapid and reactionaries are sure to quickly fall behind. Besides that, I think most scientists have learned the lessons of history...
 

RideFree

Diamond Member
Jul 25, 2001
3,433
2
0
(Alex received the following via e-mail on 2 Feb. ?08)

[ Alex, ]
Considering the amount of money, the magnitude of people?s programs, status and security plus the political budgets and connections invested in the structure you are threatening to dismantle, I expect you to be ignored so long as possible and when that becomes difficult, attacked in some very unpleasant ways. Being correct about your subject will remain irrelevant, perhaps for most or even all of your lifetime unless you are either lucky or able to line up some fully committed support strong enough that it can?t be pushed around. Your best ally will probably be the internet and its bloggers. Like all rapacious beasts though, they will require careful and continuing feeding and management. I suspect you have figured this out but it may be tougher than expected. I trust that you have tenure or at least, a good lawyer...Vaya con Dios and be not dismayed regardless! ? ?The only truly unforgivable sin...is having been right!?
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
I'm sure he's a nice guy, but when scientists have their breakthroughs mocked and end up running around claiming that there's some sort of conspiracy or that the academic world has blacklisted them, I become even more skeptical of their "discoveries."

Here
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: DrPizza
I'm sure he's a nice guy, but when scientists have their breakthroughs mocked and end up running around claiming that there's some sort of conspiracy or that the academic world has blacklisted them, I become even more skeptical of their "discoveries."

Here

Ah! I was wondering why I understood that paragraph - surely even the abstract of a real unification theory should be well beyond someone like me.
 

firewolfsm

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2005
1,848
29
91
I called BS when you made this thread months ago. Anyone who wants publicity can't solve it.

edit: by the way, no one will until I get my doctorate and do it myself, lazy bastards. Give me 10 more years.
 

RideFree

Diamond Member
Jul 25, 2001
3,433
2
0
Originally posted by: firewolfsm
I called BS when you made this thread months ago. Anyone who wants publicity can't solve it.

edit: by the way, no one will until I get my doctorate and do it myself, lazy bastards. Give me 10 more years.
In that amount of time I might pull even...but I'd be nearly 80. (I'd better get started right away!) :D:D:D

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
He's not the first guy to think he's solved the problem, theories come up and get shot down all the time, I hope he's onto something.

Also, if we do solve it, what comes next?
"Give me all she's got, Scotty!"
"Cap'n, I'm givin' 'er all she's got!"
 

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
6
71
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
That's not much of an abstract. He spent the entire time telling a bunch of physicists (since it was submitted to the APS - American Physical Society) what the unification is all about, something they already know, rather than describing his theory. He never mentioned anything about his theory, nor the experiment that supposedly confirms it. I'm not sure if I'll still be in St. Louis to go to the conference, but it would be interesting to know what his theory really is. There are a plethora of theories that currently unify everything, but there isn't yet any experimental evidence to make or break them. In the next 10 years or so, quite a few of these should be tested and we'll know a lot more about what's going on.

I love conferences. You don't have to actually have the paper written until the day of the presentation.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
That's not much of an abstract. He spent the entire time telling a bunch of physicists (since it was submitted to the APS - American Physical Society) what the unification is all about, something they already know, rather than describing his theory. He never mentioned anything about his theory, nor the experiment that supposedly confirms it. I'm not sure if I'll still be in St. Louis to go to the conference, but it would be interesting to know what his theory really is. There are a plethora of theories that currently unify everything, but there isn't yet any experimental evidence to make or break them. In the next 10 years or so, quite a few of these should be tested and we'll know a lot more about what's going on.

I love conferences. You don't have to actually have the paper written until the day of the presentation.

And what a lot of people do is submit an abstract, try to perform a measurement, fail, then just talk about what they WANT to do :p
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: silverpig
I love conferences. You don't have to actually have the paper written until the day of the presentation.
And what a lot of people do is submit an abstract, try to perform a measurement, fail, then just talk about what they WANT to do :p[/quote]
Which is very, very annoying. Some of us get at least preliminary results before submitting the abstract, but we are usually penalized by getting assigned posters rather than talks. Or maybe that's because I'm not a "real" doctor because I wrote a thesis...