Sunday, September 27, 2009

Understanding the Lattice, Part I

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV

Abstract

In my recent series on motion, I defended the thesis that motion is a causal phenomenon and that, as a result, we are moving in an immense, crystal-like lattice of energetic particles. No lattice = no motion. My claim is that, when we fully understand the properties of the lattice and how it interacts with normal matter, we will enter an age of essentially unlimited clean energy and extremely fast travel. In The Problem With Motion, Part IV, I explained why the lattice is 4-dimensional and why the discreteness of motion means that there is only one speed in nature, the speed of light. In this post, I introduce what I call particle-centric (as opposed to observer-centric) physics. I describe a few essential properties of particles and I argue that all motion occur along fixed or absolute axes.

Be the Particle

I think the entire observer-centric approach to physics is hopelessly boneheaded. It can only scratch the surface of what is really out there. The truly foundational and powerful stuff remains forever beyond its reach. What is needed is a particle-centric physics, that is, one that models reality from the point of view of particles, so to speak. Why? Simply because the universe could not give a rat’s ass about observers. Come to think of it, where did that observer-based reality nonsense come from anyway? It’s another one of those things that infuriate me about physics.

To truly understand why a particle behaves in certain ways, a physicist must take the place of the particle in his or her mind and imagine the types of properties and interactions that are needed to cause the particle to behave the way it does. "Be the particle!" should be the physicist's main motto. Consequently, as the particle, one must ask oneself pertinent questions such as: Why should I move? Why should I move in this particular direction? And why should I move at that particular speed? Only by asking why-type questions will we gain a deep understanding of the universe.

Bodies and Wings

A throrough understanding of particle behavior calls for building a model that describes the properties and interactions involved in making it happen. My research has led me to conclude that every particle must have at least one of two types of energy properties. I call these properties body and wing (I’ll explain my choice of terminology in a future article). You can think of bodies as mass energy and of wings as kinetic energy. All particles have wings but some have both bodies and wings while others have no body. Here are a few essential principles that govern bodies and wings.
  1. The total energy of a particle (body + wings) is conserved. That is to say, it stays the same always, whether or not the particle is moving.
  2. Body energy can be transferred to the wings and vice versa.
  3. A particle is at absolute rest if its entire energy is contained in its body.
  4. A particle moves at the speed of light if its entire energy is contained in its wings.
There are several other equally important principles having to do with particle interactions but that’s the subject of my next post.

Applicability of Newtonian Physics

The first principle in the list above is the reason for the familiar Newtonian principle of the conservation of momentum. The first and second principles together imply that using a Newtonian force to accelerate a particle does not change its energy. It only transfers some energy from its body to its wings or vice versa. Newtonian physics works adequately only at ordinary speeds. At those speeds, only an exceedingly small fraction of a particle’s total energy is contained in its wings. Consequently, it is safe to assume that the mass (body) of a particle is invariant in most situations. By contrast, at half the speed of light, a particle’s body and wings contain equal amounts of energy. Newtonian equations would not work properly at that speed because the particle’s mass is only one half its original or rest value. For now, forget about the relativist nonsense according to which the mass of a body increases toward infinity as it approaches the speed of light. I’ll get back to this in an upcoming post.

Lattice Particles

I have a special name for lattice particles but I cannot reveal it at this time, as it would disrupt my long-term strategy. Let’s just call them LPs for now. The main difference between an LP and an ordinary particle like the electron is that the former has no body (no mass) while the latter has both body and wings. An LP only has wings and, as a result, moves at the speed of light. Previously, I wrote that every particle must have three wings, one for each dimension of ordinary space. Actually, I should have said three pairs of wings or six wings altogether. Each pair consists of a positive wing and negative wing. Why? Because there are two directions for each dimension.

I also wrote that all particles in the entire universe are moving at the speed of light in the fourth dimension. One would think that a fourth pair of wings is needed for motion in the fourth dimension and one would be only partially right. The reason is that the motion of the universe along the fourth dimension is special. It’s special because it cannot be messed with, that is, it must happen no matter what and it cannot miss a beat. In a future article, I will explain why this is directly connected to gravity. I know, mysteries are piling up. But lattice physics is not about creating mysteries but unraveling old ones.

The Absolute Axes of the Universe

A dimension is not a property of space. Space (distance) is an illusion of perception. It is a useful but abstract concept that we use for navigation. It helps us to make sense of the relationships between objects. The idea that there is some space that is extrinsic to particles and in which they move, is one that is dead on arrival. I explain why elsewhere. A dimension is a degree of freedom, or separation. It is an abstract concept. It is a means by which the universe can determine whether two particles are either together or separated and, if separated, by how much. This is important because this is how the universe can tell whether or not there has been a violation of a conservation principle.

A 1-dimensional universe is one in which every particle has one and only one positional property. A universe with four dimensions means that particles have four positional properties. A discrete universe means that there are only discrete dimensions. In other words, all motion occurs along fixed absolute axes. Consequently, and in contrast to the relativist’s lame denial of absolute directions, any technology that purports to tap into the lattice for energy production and propulsion will have to identify the absolute axes of the universe. As I will explain in a future post, this will be an essential requirement of all lattice-based propulsion systems.

Upcoming

In Part II, I will go over particle interactions. I will explain why there are four types of lattice particles and why they travel at the speed of light the moment they are dislodged from their original positions in the lattice. I will also have a few things to say about particle decay and, especially, the reason behind the probabilistic nature of decay. As it turns out, all interactions (hence, motion) are probabilistic.

19 comments:

Lauri said...

You still do not address previous criticisms on the basic foundations on which you build your fancy sand castle-thoughts.

Everything you've written so far sounds only like over-excited imagination.

al fin said...

I am enjoying the unfolding of your ideas.

Please continue as long as you can.

Ignore the people who are willing to jump to conclusions before the entire story is told.

95311 said...

Thanks Louis for continuing your writings. I am very intrigued and I will see how far the rabbit hole goes in your hypothesis. Hopefully there is some credible onto which you can base your claims, but I understand it will take time and patience because: (1) Everyone knows that science takes a long time to progress, and (2) You probably don't have many materials at your disposal to experiment your hypothesis.

Keep thinking though, because science needs as many different approaches as it can get (no matter how crackpot they may seem).

Ted said...

As a physicist, I have but one response: LOL.

Louis Savain said...

Ted wrote:

As a physicist, I have but one response: LOL.

Yeah, but do you have the gonads to put your real name behind that statement? You must never be ashamed of who you are and what you stand for.

A little bit of gonads is all it takes.

Philip said...

It’s another one of those things that infuriate me about physics.

The main one being that no-one worth their salt takes you seriously?

Physics primarily answers how.

We leave the why to metaphysics and religion, for good reason.

Why does a particle move? Why does the universe exist? Why do I feel like my existence is meaningless?

The fact is: the universe does exist, and we can observe particles moving.

Dirac predicted anti-particles. You predict a 'lattice'?

Is that like the 'ether' through which light was supposed to move?

Most of these 'conundrums' and 'paradoxes' you post about have been solved and discussed for centuries.


Do yourself a favour and pick up a book not written by Deepak Chopra

Louis Savain said...

Philip,

Yo, Philipo. If you don't like what I say on my blog, you're free to go somewhere else, you know. After all, nobody is twisting your arm, right?

Lauri said...

Louis, it might be good for you to read this:

http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/09/0929lysenko/

I think it's a nice example of why science needs to allow free criticism.

Louis Savain said...

Lauri,

My blog is not supported by public funds and I don't accept advertising. This blog is a dictatorship and I am the dictator. It's that simple.

Moral of the story: You and Philip should be grateful that I allow you to post your crap on my blog.

Philip said...

You're a little Stalin in your own little online world, huh Louis?

Lauri's post shows all to well what happens when private interests are used to drive out criticism and counter-evidence.

Your intuitive and rhetorical approach to physics is as old as Aristotle, and flawed beyond repair. Get your head out of the sand and do something useful

Wade Morris said...

Louis,

As long as I can remember (at least since the age of 10 or younger - Im 40 now) I have been fascinated by the "discrete" necessity of things. A particle must get from point A to B by some method. You can keep dividing space (distance) infinitely but the particle cannot make the trip without getting a "jump" across some distance. Thus, embrace the jump. Crackpot or not, it simply has to be.

Its unfortunate that your more
"educated" readers cannot seem to understand that currently physics and math only explain things (to put it kindly) "B to X". You may be wrong but Im sure "A" and "Z" (or Alpha and Omega...?) are going to blow our socks off.

Keep on keeping on

Lauri said...

Quoting Wade:

"Currently physics and math only explain things (to put it kindly) "B to X". You may be wrong but Im sure "A" and "Z" (or Alpha and Omega...?) are going to blow our socks off."

I'd go even farther and say that physics and math explain D, E, F, R and S; or perhaps less. But that is their nature, they sacrifice explaining everything, so that that which they do explain is rock-solid and can be trusted.

If you want broader explanations you might for example read literature. At least I prefer literature to physics as a pastime. But you cannot build computers, skyscrapers or cars with knowledge of literature, as the language is too inexact. Science is just a tool.

Wade Morris said...

Lauri,

Physics and math, to the extent that they currently only explain, as you say, D, E, F, R, & S, dont provide context to the letters they dont explain. Instead, they are only useful in that they return reliable results in a limited and fixed set of circumstances. But that doesnt necessarily make them "correct" even in those limited circumstances. For example a broken analog clock could very reliably return the correct time twice a day, every day, without fail. But it gives us no understanding about the rest of the day and no context to understanding the movement of time. Thus it may be useful but not "correct"

I am an amatuer student so I hold no monolopy on the correct answers but I know that Newtonian Physics had to be modified by General Relativity which provided greater context and better results. But it too breaks down at the margins...both at the very tiny (the Plank scale) and at the super massive (singularities).

We know there must be a better explanation for what exists. I find nothing that this author is saying that doesnt try to explain both known phenomon and try to explain that which we do not yet know and fit it together into a comprehensive package.

I dont know if hes right, but it is compelling for the reason I stated above.

How do you explain away the continuity vs. discrete nature of movement as presented?

Lauri said...

Quoting:
"How do you explain away the continuity vs. discrete nature of movement as presented?"

In short form, continuity is what we have observed again and again. I don't know about observations of discreteness. You can find some criticisms of discreteness in the previous three or so blog "threads". Also, Louis has yet to present a testable hypothesis on discreteness.

Then about correctness. Science is not really about being correct in the absolute philosophical sense. It's about knowing what is the likely outcome of doing something, with both the something and the outcome defined in a limited way based on what is achievable with the equipment and methods at hand. It is of course common to generalize the findings beyond the limited test set-up, which is just an assumption, though often a reasonable one, but still just an assumption.

Maths is a bit different, as it aims at universal truth (or correctness), but even math starts with assumptions (axioms) which we simply think are likely to be true. Everything else is deduced from these using logic. The emphasis on proof in math is to make sure the logic is correct. So if Louis wanted to be productive on this front, he could challenge the axioms...

[BTW: Contrary to what you say, a broken clock sometimes shows the correct time, but it is utterly useless. But I don't understand what purpose this line of argument serves.]

Just trying to explain something doesn't mean that the explanation would be correct (in the loose everyday sense, as nothing is necessarily correct in the strict sense). If you are not happy with limitations in knowledge of current science, you always have the option, for example, of believing in your favorite sci-fi explanations. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that (or anything else for that matter), but I'd be amazed if intricate knowledge of Star Trek science, technology and engineering would actually allow you to build the Enterprise.

jarson said...

All of this is simply hilarious...

Blane said...

Louis,

You may be on to something with this idea of a discreet underpinning to reality, and aren't the only one discussing such things, albiet with different names, like vacuum energy, dark energy, quantum-wave state, spin foam, Planck particles, etc. All these things are analagous to your lattice and lattice particles.

However, your desire to tie this to your belief of Biblical underpinnings in physics (which is apparent when analyzing your choice of words and past material you've published) has completely destroyed any chance you may have had of being taken seriously by any reputable scientist. And this is coming from someone who doesn't actually disagree with you.

I certainly believe that the Bible contains MANY veiled truths that probably relate directly to our current scientific understanding of the universe. But knowing if it was something that was previously known and was 'coded' in the Bible in metaphor and couched symbolism, or if we simply see these metaphors and relate them to knowledge that we NOW possess is simply impossible, and only through faith can we believe that this knowledge was handed down to us in such a way. Any attempt to lead logic into the realm of faith is fraught with peril: ridicule and derision will follow anyone who tried such a thing. If you believe such things, its best to keep it to yourself. Too many wars have been fought over people not keeping their damn mouths shut.

Now, that previous statement is likely going to lead you down another dark road you're apt to follow, one of ad hominem attack. I've seen your Usenet posts, and I know you are definitely prone to it. It serves no purpose, and labeling everyone who you would hope would listen to you as a fraud will obliterate any worth your arguments may have. Fraud implies intent, and I seriously doubt that mainstream science has been trying to intentionally delude people since the days of Newton, especially considering the progress we've had because of it. They may simply be wrong, and that's ok. Failure is as important to progress as success.

If you want to be taken seriously as a scientist, you should really take this to heart, and experiment with your hypothesis! There are definitely scientists out there who are doing this. The foremost experiments that come to mind are those trying to verify the Woodward effect (also called the Mach effect). A discreet reality (as opposed to a continuous one) would help explain this greatly, and if its real, will change our way of life in the way you claim your ideas will.

Blane said...

...and why I chose to spell discrete 'discreet' twice eludes me... c'est la vie.

Greg Robert said...

"Science should be based on 'why' questions".

Oh baloney. Science stopped asking "why" a long time ago. Science can only DESCRIBE reality and suggest that it is largely mathematical. It can't explain why about ANYTHING.

Thus all of your "work" is either religion or metaphysics. But it's definitely not science.

tintouen said...

Sorry for this simple question: as 3D space is just space, if we call a 6D space (x,y,z,dx,dy,dz) the "Animated space" and a 9D space (x,y,z,x',y',z',x'',y'',z'') the "Energizied Space" ?
Does this eliminate the time coordinate?