Friday, October 2, 2009

Understanding the Lattice, Part II

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV


In Part I, I introduced a new approach to doing physics. I called it particle-centric physics, as opposed to observer-centric physics. I described two types of particle properties, body and wing, and a few principles that govern their nature. I wrote that a lattice particle has wings but no body, which causes it to travel at the speed of light once moved from its original position in the lattice. Finally, I claimed that any technology that purports to tap into the lattice for energy production or propulsion would have to identify the absolute axes of the universe. In this post, I argue that the universe is necessarily probabilistic and that every interaction is really an absorption/decay phenomenon. I argue against the concept of superposition and I explain why lattice particles travel at the speed of light as soon as they are dislodged from their original rest positions in the lattice. Please read Physics: The Problem With Motion before continuing.

An Interaction Is an Absorption/Decay Phenomenon

As I have maintained repeatedly elsewhere, the motion of a particle consists of a series of minute discrete jumps caused by interactions with a particulate lattice. When you think about it for as long as I have, you eventually realize that an interaction is really an absorption/decay phenomenon and that a particle in motion is undergoing a series of absorption/decay events.

During an interaction, the moving particle absorbs an LP (lattice particle) and then, after a given interval related to speed, a decay event (or jump) occurs and the two particles move away from each other in different directions. The interval between absorption and decay is directly tied, on average, to the energies involved. The line in the diagram above is there only for illustration. There is no in-between distance between two adjacent positions in the lattice. The curved arrow is also there for illustration purposes. During a jump, the particle just changes position.

Probabilistic Universe

I say on average above because the timing of an interaction is probabilistic. By this I mean that the interval between the absorption event and the decay event is not exact. Nature is forced to use probability because it cannot set the exact duration of an interaction based on the energies involved. Why? Because the only interval that nature has to work with is the fundamental discrete interval (jump interval). It turns out that time is abstract and cannot exist physically. This sounds crackpottish, I know, but the logic behind it is rock solid.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, a physical time dimension would make change impossible. This is not something that is well known in the physics community, as most physicists would be surprised to learn that nothing can move in spacetime (surprise!). In Conjectures and Refutations, Sir Karl Popper compared Einstein’s spacetime to Parmenides’ block universe in which nothing happens. Of course, nobody in the physics community would have dared to contradict Sir Karl on this one, as he would have ripped them a new orifice. So they ignored him and kept on publishing papers and articles about how particles travel along their geodesics in curved spacetime and how curved spacetime causes gravity. The absurdity never ends in the physics community.

The way it really works is as follows. At every instant, nature is presented with multiple sets of interactions to resolve. Each set has a specific probability of decaying based on the energies involved. Nature just randomly selects a percentage of the particles in a set for decay. Let’s say every particle in a set has a fifty percent chance of decaying at a given instant. Nature would then cause half of the particles (selected at random) to decay at that particular instant. Even the inertial motion of a particle is not immune to this. Over the long run, it may look as if the interval between any two jumps is the same everywhere but it is not. It just averages out to a value that depends on the energies involved.

Religion of Cretins

Physicists enjoy amazing a wide-eyed and credulous public with tall tales of quantum particles having multiple states at the same time, decayed and not decayed. They love to recite how the mere fact of observing the particle causes a fairy creature known as the wave function to collapse, revealing either one state or the other. They call it superposition and they’ve even created a whole new field around it called quantum computing. Needless to say, it’s all a bunch of hocus-pocus, in the not even wrong category. One of their own, Erwin Schrödinger, a Nobel laureate and himself a devotee of the religion, invented a thought experiment known as Schrödinger’s cat in order to illustrate the high strangeness, if not the outright crackpottery of it all. Unfortunately, the religion had already taken off and nothing could stop it.

Superposition is crackpottery on the face of it, as any young child can tell you that nothing can be both left and right at the same time. Superposition, quantum computing, acausal motion, exclusive relativity, flat earth, time travel and continuity, are all sacraments of the same religion, a religion of cretins to be exact. Only the physics community can get away with such absurdities. The truth is that particle interactions are probabilistic simply because the exact timing of interactions cannot be calculated. It has nothing to do with particle properties having multiple simultaneous states or any such silly nonsense. If the precise state of a particle did not exist at every instant, nature would have no way of determining the probability of it interacting with another particle. It’s simple logic.

Lattice Dynamics

Why do LPs travel at the speed of light? How is the probabilistic interval between an absorption event and a decay event determined? My research has revealed that two interacting particles will immediately decay or expel each other without delay if they both have equal interacting energies. So, in order for an LP to travel at the speed of light, it must interact with a series of other lattice particles each of which has an energy level equal to its own. It follows that, at every discrete position of the lattice, there is a huge number of LPs, one for every possible energy level up to the highest level needed to move the most massive particle of normal matter. It also follows that a lattice particle can interact only with another particle of equal energy level.

The figure above is a symbolic representation of a lattice particle. There are two wings, positive and negative, for each of the three spatial dimensions. The face symbol is new. I will explain its significance in Part III. In addition, I will explain exactly why two particles interact and how lattice particles interact with normal massive particles (e.g., an electron). This will shed new light on interactions. Finally, I will write about what can be done in order to exploit the lattice for propulsion and energy production.


Jim T said...

This is much better than timecube.

Matthew B. Richards said...

Would it be possible to get some rudimentary diagrams in these posts? I think you could save yourself some time explaining in such detail and actually make the concepts even easier to understand.

I find myself struggling to conceptualize when there are so many possible interpretations.

Louis Savain said...


I agree. I promise to add a few diagrams as soon as I can. Thanks.

Sean said...

My big challenge is understanding how anything can be four-dimensional without passing the old orthogonality test. And that's not my passive aggressive way of saying I don't believe it, I really welcome any illumination of that point.

I've always kinda laughed at all those quantum theories that talk about the fifth dimension, or 11 dimensions or loop dimensions etc. Seems I'm in the right place to scoff at such things.

Mike said...

OK, but how do you explain the observable phenomenon reproduced by the classic, well-verified, double-slit experiments which demonstrate wave-particle duality upon which so much of what you criticise is based?


In particular:

"The most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open. The pattern of interference remains the same, as can be seen if many photons are emitted one at a time and recorded on the same sheet of photographic film. The clear implication is that something with a wavelike nature passes simultaneously through both slits and interferes with itself — even though there is only one photon present. (The experiment works with electrons, atoms, and even some molecules too.)"

Or would you have us believe that nature, (sorry, 'God') is just another crackpot making up nonsense to confuse us?

Louis Savain said...

Mike wrote (quoting from Wikipedia):

"The most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open.

This is the Achille's heel of this type of experiments. How can the experimenters be certain that only 1 photon was fired at the barrier?

Believe me, I have read this stuff many times before and I know what experimenters are claiming to be incontrovertible evidence for single photons. I can tell you that it's pure hogwash. Think about it, single dots appearing on a target surface is not incontrovertible evidence that only one photon hit the surface. It's only evidence that only one target particle reacted.

In the case of electrons, it should be common knowledge that an electron is not a solitary particle. It continually emits real particles (in this case, lattice particles) that interact with other distant particles.

In the end, this whole particle/wave duality nonsense is all wishful thinking on the part of the magic believers in the physics community. In other words, it's superstition, plain and simple.

David Freiberg said...

@Jim T

It sure is.

Mike said...

The experimenters can be certain that only a single photon is travelling toward the target at any time by reducing the current through the source, and measuring the number of charged particles entering and leaving it. Providing a light tight box is easy and sufficient, assuming the target is sensitive to photons of visible wavelengths.

However, you appear to have misunderstood, or are attempting to misdirect your audience. It isn't about single dots, it is about the overall pattern of interference of those dots. While true that a single dot only implies that 'at least' one photon hit the target, an interference pattern implies that, overall, they are interfering with each other. Seeing as only one photon is travelling between the source and the target at any one moment, it is logical that the photons must have wavelike properties.

So that you can't escape with the argument you presented above, let me trivially rephrase the question: How do you explain the absence of particles in the darker areas of the interference pattern? I.e. what is special about the target particles in these darker regions that photons keep missing them? Please base your answer on peer-reviewed scientific experiments with falsifiable hypotheses.