It was the only picture I was able to find with someone holding a chicken...:)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I finally decided to blog my theory, I took some precautions like registering the papers in the Library of Congress, sending the paper to at least two places and finding a visible and dated repository for them.

Blogger has dates. I am sure they also have a backup some place... The internet has a memory (web arquiving services). So I thought it would be "safe".

I wrote the paper, published in the internet at the General Journal of Science http://www.wbabin.net/papers.htm

I also posted in innumerous places and explained it at length in many list servers like the several yahoo groups : toe etc..

I know that Mankind is full of copycats, chicken thieves etc... Some people will do anything to gain glory or money on someone's else work..>:)

I faced a few who contacted me and said...:) "Hey, take a look on my idea... it is like yours..:) "

Fortunately for me, these were only crackpots with no ideas at all...

The Hypergeometrical Universe is extensive and fit together perfectly. This means that Chicken Thieves would have to steal the Whole Chimichanga, not just part of it...:)

There are two currents of thought inside my brain about Chicken Thieves. One tells me that one should ignore Chicken Thieves since you are shedding light on silly copycats - Historians will sort things up. The other tells me that if you don't take a stand, they might steal your Chickens..:)

I will just take a stand in my corner of the internet.

There were two notable cases. One called Moving Dimensions. The other will covered in the next blog.

One day, the author of this "Moving Dimensions Theory" invited me to join his group. I did. I immediately realized that this was a half-brained copycat.

Just the word moving dimensions doesn't mean anything and there was nothing there other than the title.

The author of "Moving Dimensions Theory" asked me to join a site and asked me many questions which I answered and transcribed those answers in my blog:

http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com/2006/09/peer-review.html

I did not receive any reply or comments from any of detailed answers which left me with a bad taste..>:)

The fellow kept writing in list servers claims (postulates) which grew and now parallel my theory...:) While my theory has basically one postulate (The Hypergeometrical Universe Topology), Moving Dimensions is only postulates passing as conclusions.

It is a shame.

In any event, I confronted the person at this list-server.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/e7751d19701d16b9/?hl=en#

It is like a bad xerox copy.

Cheers,

MP

----------------------------------------------------

Below is the reproduction of the blog I wrote as soon as I had the unpleasant experience of explaining my theory to someone that might be a Chicken Thief...:)

Cheers,

MP

**Peer Review**

Sometime ago I received an email inviting me to join a group Physics, Astronomy, Math, & Philosophy Forums just after I seeing a posting on about Moving Dimensions on one of those scientific list servers . This happened more than a year after I made my work public.

When I joined that group, I considered that it would be a trap. Someone would pretend to read my theory and then put it down, thus making the so called "Moving Dimension Theory" the only one in town..:) That had happened before at the TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com.

Of course, I believe that my theory should be challenged, otherwise it would be in the same league of the God Sent Theories of the 23rd Century (String Theory) or God Like Theories (Inflation Theory suspends the laws of physics when it is convenient), thus I always joined the groups and always answered all the questions. Many times, I tried to make my peer to fully read the documents in this site. Eventually my initial perception of entrapment became irrelevant after I realized that my peer - in good faith, I believe - was asking very specific questions and that it would be beneficial if I were to recreate my answers on that site.The concept of Moving Dimensions Theory is not a novel one. First of all, I have a full Grand Unification theory based on a Universe as a 4-Dimensional Shock Wave, which of course, has a metric that contains a translation (Radial Expansion at the speed of light).

Second, anyone can say that the Universe is moving some place, but unles you provide a topology and an absolute reference frame, this is a meaningless statement. It is still a meaningless statement if you don't derive meaningful conclusions from it. One can never prove that the Universe is not on an inertial motion going somewhere!...:) One can easily say that the Universe is pagelike and moves upwards.... or sideways.. That doesn't mean anything.

Every time someone proposes that the speed of light or the gravitaional constant might not be constant one would end up with a Moving Dimensions Theory, since the metric depends upon C and G and different regions of the Universe are traveling (Hubble Expansion). Thus this is not a new idea nor a non-trivial conclusion. Of course, my theory states that G is time dependent, since it depends upon the radius of curvature of the shock wave Universe, but C is always constant...:)

I made an effort to be clear and thorough. Please visit the site and let me know if I forgot something. I even mentioned elements of my next Blog- He ain't heavy, He is my Brother...

I still have the rest of the weekend to work on that Blog. So I will be brief.

Cheers,

MP

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will reproduce the answers I gave in that site to two questions:

a) Explain succintly all your hypotheses.

b) What is the reason for/Explain Non-Local Phenomena?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In any event, some of your misunderstandings are my fault. I wrote 30 blog entries explaining the theory. It is difficult not to rely on them when I explain my theory in another environment - this site for instance.

I went into the net in search of intelligent dialog and tried as hard as I could not to put people off for being critical of their misunderstandings... I believe that it is from discussions that enlightment is created and I would be the last person in the Universe to run away from a critic...

I have to thank you for asking me the question about the non-local phenomena... I solved that problem and published it in the blog... http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com

I have to make a comment about that requirement. No theory out there explains non-local phenomena, thus it would be an unfair test for my theory... Since I solved the problem, I shouldn't mind it and should thank you for that...

Let's limit the number of elements in this iteration. I will focus on a few elements of my theory and my review of Action at Distance Phenomena.

These are the hypotheses used in the theory (plus or minus one or two that I might had forgoten...)

a) The first hypothesis is that the whole Universe is a hyperspherical surface expanding at the speed of light. This is supported by the equation E=mc^2 which is the energy of a body traveling at the speed of light. Further analysis of this equation show that it can be recast as a Pythagorean addition of two linear momentum components: one equal to p (3D linear momentum) and another perpendicular to the first one and equal to m0c (where m0 is the rest mass). Of course, this motion cannot be denied nor easily proved since it is an inertial motion and one cannot detect inertial motion. This topology is also what one would expect from conservation of momentum after a explosion, constant speed of spacetime deformations etc...It is aesthetically pleasing to know that everything in the Universe is treated equally - like traveling deformations of 4-D space). It also provides a simple explanation on the why the speed of light is the limiting speed. It becomes clear that everything we send in our glorious 3-D shell is just a change in k-vector or a lateral change of direction of a constant magnitude lightspeed vector. Since this is just a change in direction and not in modules, it becomes clear the speed limitation. The maximum speed one can observe in the 3-D shell is c, which would correspond to a local rotation of the lightspeed vector by 45 degrees with respect to the Radial direction. Please see the link to the cross section of the Universe.

Hyperspherical Universe Cross-Section

b) The theory is a geometrical representation of the Universe and thus Mass, Force etc has to have an equivalent representation. Some constructs might be not relevant to this first theory, hence they are not recreated. The theory anchors itself on Lorentz transforms on a non-compact five dimensional spacetime. This means that the metric describing this spacetime can be easily constructed by a translation -due to the hyperspherical expansion and two rotations. One around the direction perpendicular to Cosmological Time Phi and X by an angle arctanh(v/c) and another around the direction perpendicular to Radial Direction R and X by an angle arctan(v/c). This reasoning is done for simplicity starting from a preferred referential with X perpendicular to R - relaxed local spacetime - but could be done on any initial inertial frame.

c) The 3-D Universe is considered to be the expanding hyperspherical surface traveling outwards at the speed of light. All the elements of the Universe are represented in terms of metric waves (dilatons) and metric wave generators (dilators).

d) Standard Quantum Mechanical Description of 4-D space deformational potential is used. Particles are modeled as coherence between two states of a four-dimensional rotating double well. This is a simple quantum mechanical picture which has perfect analogy on the coherences that gives rise to electromagnetic fields. Electronically excited molecules contains coherences at the moment of light emission. These coherences generate a time dependent observed electric dipole - like an antenna. This oscillating electric dipole is dephased through interaction with surrounding electromagnetic fields.

e) In the case of protons and electrons, the theory states that they are the two states of the same coherence, thus being the same particle. How come this is possible? It should be clear, but if now, you will have to await until I publish the pictures. It is difficult to explain something like this in words... although it is quite a simple hypothesis... Let me emphasize what I just said: Proton and electron are the same particle; they have exactly the same mass, with a caveat.

They have exactly the same mass as probed by their 4-D space trajectory while they perform the Radial motion. When they interact with the rest of the 3-D Universe, they have the mass associated with just one of the sides of the potential well. A Neutron is just a dimmer and thus all basic matter is made of the same stuff, a coherence between the two lower states of deformation of the 4-D space. An unconstrained deformation will propagate and the propagation will always be the speed of light. Spin is modeled as a tumbling motion as the radial expansion takes place. In my blog, "The Meaning of Material Existence" I explained the constraint on spin. For anything to exists, that is, to be able to interact with the rest of the Universe, it has to be in phase with these dilatons and traveling the same shock wave Universe. The phase requirement also applies to spinning motion, thus the quantization of spin.

f) Time driving the Radial expansion (motion of the Universe perpendicular to the 3-D space) is Absolute and continuous. Continuous in the sense that I did not find anything that would absolutely require a quantized time, although I came close to it. Since this is a 5-D spacetime, relative velocity creates two rotations: a) one is a rotation perpendicular to R and X by an angle arctan(vx/c) and b) a rotation by an imaginary angle given by arctanh(vx/c).

g) In my theory, there is an Absolute Time - in addition to local time projections or proper time and a Preferential Direction in Space but these cannot be easily determined, they are not observables. The only thing one can easily observe is the relative angle between proper times. Thus one can only observe relative time flow as required by Relativity.

h) Using Dilators and Dilaton fields generated by One Kilogram of Matter and One Kilogram of Charge, I was able to recover Gauss Law of Electrostatics, Newton's Law of Gravitation and the complex vectorial Biot-Savart Law of Magnetism. They are all derived from the aforementioned assumptions and that is an indication of a highly physical (as opposed to a Mathematical Stratospheric Digression) theory. Everything people do in this field is to guess a metric, guess a meaningless Lagrangian and derive Black Holes related geodesics... over and over again, without the benefit of Physics Intuition. When I say physical intuition I am not referring to some sixth sense, but to an emsemble of well grounded and logically supported hypotheses, which can replicate what we already know. Current theories cannot say anything about reality.

The last item of my current essay is the answer to what you asked me before:

**What is Action at Distance or Non-Local Phenomena?**

My answer is simple... They do not exist.

Non-local phenomena as in the photon polarization experiments will be taken as an example. In the experiment that gives rise to this kind of speculation, an excited medium is placed between identical two arms, each arm having a polarizer and two detectors. Light excitation is kept low such that coincident photons can be counted. Photons are emited by the excited medium in pairs with k-vectors defined by the physical setting of the experiment and are polarization correlated photons. Their polarization is correlated by the short lifetime of the electronic transitions with respect to rotational periods and by the angle between transition dipole moments in the molecular frame of reference.

My answer is simple... They do not exist.

The paradox arises when one uses the following hypothesis: Quantum Mechanics dictates that photons will not define their polarizations until there is a measurement. In this experiment, the measurement event is the interaction between polarizer and the incoming photon. Under those conditions, information of one photons polarization choice has to reach the other instantaneously. Implicit in this hypothesis is the other hypothesis that the emission occurs through dephasing of the electronic coherence by the interaction between the oscillating dipole and zero point randomly polarized vacuum fluctuations.

**I reached the conclusion that the implicit hypothesis is incorrect.**

**I know that the detectors have resonances at the photons energies they are suppose to detect. This means that they will emit radiation at those frequencies through Black Body or Thermal fluctuations. This field together with the extreme selectivity of the experimental design assures that the dephasing event is driven not by randomly polarized zero point fluctuations of vacuum but by polarized Black Body radiation from the detectors themselves. They are polarized from the perspective of the emiting molecule. The molecule is "seeing" the detectors through polarizers!**

This means that the polarization of the outgoing photons is defined at the moment of the emission and thus there is no need for any non-local phenomena.

I hope you will appreciate the simplicity of the argument and let me know if you disagree.

## No comments:

Post a Comment