A Crackpot Physics: Issues

post by ACrackedPot · 2021-04-20T17:07:52.150Z · LW · GW · 2 comments


  Additional Issues
    Coherence Problem
    Neutrino Problem

An Introduction to A Crackpot Physics [LW · GW]

An important part of developing a crackpot theory of physics is figuring out where the crackpot theory of physics deviates from normality.

Trying to elaborate on some of the bigger weaknesses in the model, I skip past some of the more mundane weaknesses; I could devote some time, for example, to noting the fact that the difference between light and gravitational waves in this model mostly come down to frequency, which is contradicted by the SM and spin mechanics.  But, in another sense, that's just reiterating the idea that this isn't the Standard Model, so it isn't actually helpful to get a sense for where the ideas here have a shaky foundation.

Likewise, there's the central weakness of "I haven't actually identified the parameters that make my equations work at the scales under consideration", but again, the equation is not in fact the important thing in all of this.

Electrical Forces

The single biggest issue with the Crackpot Physics is electrical forces; for any of this to work, basically, electrical forces must be, in some sense, a fictitious force.

I've played with a few models to account for it.  There is of course the Kaluza-Klein approach; that is one viable approach, although I think it isn't a fifth dimension at all, if Kaluza-Klein is the case, but rather time itself, which I believe might be a spiral in a complex plane.  How a spiral related to a closed dimension is potentially complicated.

It could also be one of the two complex dimensions involved in the spiral which gives rise to the unified field; that is, a fictitious (in a sense) dimension.  This has other interesting implications if correct, because the other complex dimension could potentially give rise to an anti-symmetric tensor.

However, my preferred explanation is that we don't need an explanation at all.  Electron pressure is something like my preferred explanation.  The basic idea here is that there is only the unified field theory.  Protons repel one another in some range that I am reasonably certain can't go higher than 10^6 meters.  They attract beyond that - gravity.

This predicts that magnetic fields should have a curious transition at some distance around 10^5, give or take an exponent, in which they briefly disappear, then reverse polarity.  I've found limited evidence that some asteroid magnetic fields do indeed have some curious behavior around this distance, but this evidence is very weak from my perspective, since generally speaking, nobody would report on asteroid magnetic fields behaving normally at this distance.  That is, the evidence I am able to find on this point can only be considered confirmation bias.

Electrons, meanwhile, behave in the opposite manner.  They are attracted in the range of distance that protons are repelled, and repel one another.  In order for this to work, electrons must be traveling backwards in time - otherwise, space-time curves in the wrong direction.  Which means electrons are antimatter.

This implies that electrons are repelled at gravitational, which is to say, greater than 10^6m distances, which may or may not be falsifiable with data from nebulae and solar plasma jets; I haven't been able to determine anything here, but will note that the basic idea here predicts some particular behavior for massive ionized clouds of gas.

This gets a bit weird, and it may not necessarily be the case that matter and antimatter's phases of attraction and repulsion have the same inflection points, because they may experience / perceive different distances from things.  So there are some question marks here.

The important thing here is that electrons move, from our perspective, very very fast.  Certain energy transfers happen so quickly we cannot observe them at all.  In particular, they are transferring energy between themselves and protons.  And very particularly, they can distribute the momentum the protons would otherwise accumulate as they move away from each other, canceling the momentum out entirely.  It is a delicate balance that is relatively easy to disrupt by adding additional energy.

Likely being a particular kind of stable and finite singularity, which cannot obtain any more mass on their own, electrons are perfect energy transfer mediums; no energy is lost to internal tidal effects.

One thing to note: I describe this as distinct explanations, but in a sense, they're kind of the same explanation.  If the Kaluza-Klein theory can be extended to a closed time dimension, it might be extensible to a semi-closed time dimension.

And the spiral of rotation-of-rotation is, in a sense, a kind of pseudo-closed-dimension.  Distance, and thus time, is getting rotated; in a very particular sense, an object traveling in a straight line towards or away from a mass is traversing the same distance/time over and over again, just rotated, both in complex and real dimensions.

Quantum Mechanics

The second biggest issue, insofar as it is an issue, is that the fundamental idea involved here, also involves a rejection of the core assumption of quantum mechanics, the idea that energy is inherently quantized.  This rejection is more fundamental than any particular implementation of the set of ideas; one of the core assumptions involved here is that the scale we happen to exist at, and observe the universe from, is not special.

If the scale we exist at is not special, then quantization can be ruled out before we begin - because quantization implies that there is a "floor" to reality; if there is a "floor" to reality, then we are a finite number of steps away from that floor, and thus our position is special - not the most special, which would be the floor, but special nonetheless.

This is not to say that quantization can't accurately describe the statistical behavior of particles.  In point of fact, any reality in which the speed of light is a constant should, insofar as I can determine by thinking about it really hard, observe quantization; not because energy can only come in discrete and quantized packets, but rather because the set of stable configurations of a finite set of particles, in a finite region of space, is itself finite.

The transformation, or evolution, into one of these stable configurations is going to take an amount of time proportional to the scale of the configuration.  That is, a configuration that is a meter across will take longer to evolve into than a configuration that is a femtometer across, all else being equal.

Stable configurations could get further constrained over time by energy disparities, but that's another subject entirely.

We're still left holding something of a bag, when it comes to quantization itself.  Really there's a large number of different things going on here, such that I'd struggle to even name everything that also has to be accounted for.  We still have to account for the behavior of light, because while stable configurations can get us some of the way there, it can't actually resolve the question of blackbody radiation (probably); we can retrieve some of the desired behavior from some of Rhydberg's abandoned work, in which the frequency of light corresponds to the resonant frequency of an electron in a given atomic configuration, maybe - I believe the effort of even identifying the resonant frequency of an electron in any atom more complex than hydrogen proved an impossible challenge.  So let's call that a potential solution which wasn't actually completed.

Some additional epicycles are added to these ideas dealing with some other specific kinds of quantization; spin quantization in particular remains a bit of an issue.

All that said - I think the important question is not, in fact, whether quantization exists.  The question is: Would our observations be any different in a universe with quantization as a fundamental law, than one without?  And I think the answer to that question is pretty clearly no, once you've thought through what relative scale, and the time evolution of smaller scales, actually implies.


What about the other half of quantum mechanics?

For consideration, consider the whole of the rotation, the mass-energy distribution, the curvature, the volume of space - whatever abstraction works for you - representing a single particle.  Consider the wave-form that is the unified field theory, whether the equation is sin(ln(x))/x or something completely different.

If we have a particle, then - that wave-form is the pilot wave.  If we don't have a particle, it is the waveform of the MWI.  The particle isn't necessary, it works out either way; if there is no particle, then the question of "where" an electron is isn't meaningful, and if there is, then it is convenient that the odds of finding that particle are basically proportional to the density of the mass-energy distribution in that volume of space.

Which is nicely convenient, for describing uncertainty.  Weirdly convenient.  Like, why haven't I seen this particular idea anywhere else?  If it works, there isn't even anything to unify, when it comes to quantum mechanics and general relativity.


Because sin(ln(x))/x exhibits behavior similar to MOND (namely, that the force is proportional to a square-inverse law at certain distances, and to a linear law at other distances), some issues certainly arise in macrophysics, even as it resolves others.  The biggest by far is the evidence from the Bullet Galaxy.


I haven't gone into all the potential problems with the ideas here; I still need to attempt to convey the problems involved with Time, and the secondary problems created in Special Relativity (as the model implies the potential ability to violate causality at sufficiently high acceleration).  There are other things - the idea may require an as-yet unobserved repulsive force somewhere between the scale of the solar system and the scale of a galaxy, implying a maximum size of star systems as well as a minimum size of a star cluster/galaxy - this may or may not explain the Kuiper Cliff.  Is this a problem, or an opportunity?  Both, as usual.

Also, I can list basically nearly every exotic particle as a problem, simply because I have no idea how to evaluate how they would behave in this model, as opposed to the Standard Model.  In most cases I have no idea what they would be, in this model.

Additional Issues

The Coherence Problem

This problem only makes sense in the context of the mass-energy distribution being equivalent to the probability distribution in a MWI context: When waveforms split, why do the two halves of the split waveform cohere in the same shape as the parent waveform?  Does it just happen to work out that way?  Is there an anthropic principle explanation, in that the non-coherent waveforms shred reality such that non-coherent waveforms can't actually be observed?  Do we observe non-coherent waveforms?

The Neutrino Problem

Why are quasi-singularities so common?  Is this related to the coherence problem?  Is this what a non-coherent waveform looks like?


Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by korin43 · 2021-04-20T20:13:44.737Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I feel like this needs some context. You discuss problems with your theory but don't discuss what the theory is?

Replies from: ACrackedPot
comment by ACrackedPot · 2021-04-20T20:16:35.014Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Updated with a link to the prior post, thanks!