The reality of the physical world

I will later write an article in an understandable way without too many formulas and put it to vixra, but that will take time. Here I just summarize the main findings of my recent look to Einstein’s work that I put to vixra

http://vixra.org/author/jorma_jormakka

and what it means to the structure of the reality, physical or otherwise. I also wrote a post on my Yang-Mills paper, in that paper I briefly describe some of my thoughts on quantization of gauge fields.

Some comments from my solution to the Yang-Mills problem

It is so that Einstein was wrong in claiming that our world is a 4-dimensional space-time. We live in a 3-dimensional space and time is not a coordinate. It is external to this space. Why I can say so is that the Lorentz transform is not the correct transform and empirical tests refute it. In the Lorentz transform there is the Lorentz factor γ and if the space has no preferred frame of reference this γ gets a specific value. The requirement that there is no preferred frame of reference is identical to the requirement that the line element ds² is invariant in coordinate transforms. This is why it is said that the space is a 4-dimensional space-time, a Minkowski space. If there is a preferred frame of reference ds² is not invariant and our space is not 4-dimensional space-time. What I showed in the paper on special relativity is that time dilation in the transverse direction gives the relation of the proper time in the rest frame and the proper time in the moving frame as the Lorentz factor as if there is no preferred frame of reference, but then I show that the time dilation in the direction of movement has a different expression coming from the equations of the Lorentz transform. When the time dilation in transverse to the movement and to the direction of the movement are set to be equal, the term γ gets a different value, not the usual Lorentz factor. This shows that there is a preferred frame of reference, we do not live in the 4-dimensional space-time and the time is not a coordinate. This is the solution to the twin paradox: you cannot think that either one of the twins can be considered as the moving one. Only one of them is the moving one.

In the same paper about special relativity I show that the natural coordinate transform in a discrete space fills all empirical tests and also a theoretical requirement that the Lorentz transform does not fill: that the proper time of a moving frame does not depend of the speed of a signal sent from that frame. Thus, I can say that the space where we live is a discrete three-space with a discrete time, which can be called moments. This transform in the discrete world is exactly the Lorentz transform for particles or signals moving with the speed of light, γ must be set to the same value as described above for the Lorentz transform.

I also explain briefly that mass=energy is incorrectly understood, the energy released is the energy of the pressure from the universe, not some binding energy in an atom.

In the paper on general relativity I show that Einstein’s equations are false, the diagonal equations need not be zeros. Nordström’s second field theory is the more correct one. It is Lorentz invariant, which one could fix. Lorentz invariance holds for particles moving with the speed c also in the discrete theory, so the fix is very minor and concerns only the equations of motion for massive test particles.

In the same paper I show that planets do not move in elliptic orbits under Newtonian central force. If this surprises you, then think of the orbit of a planet. If you change the central force, the orbit must change. The same way, if you change the central force, the potential energy of the gravitational field must change. Thus, the energy equation and the equations of motion cannot be the same for any central force, yet the elliptic orbits of planets are derived from conservation of the angular momentum and the momentum and this argument does not demand anything from the central force. So it must be wrong. We cannot reason from any other conservation law than the conservation of energy if there are forces. Think about a golf ball. It conserves the momentum, but if you hit it with a bat (an external force) then it does change the previous momentum it had. If there is a force all the time as between the sun and the planet, then you cannot calculate from conservation of the angular momentum and the momentum. This should be obvious even to a child, but this is the way physicists derive it.

In the third paper I show that Bell’s theorem, said to be the deepest result in physics, is incorrect, the scaling of the detector parameters is simply wrong. The paper was 1.5 months in a journal, finally the editor sent me information that he will not send the paper to referees. I wrote more text to the end of the paper, wrote to the editor that he has misunderstood the paper and asked him to read the new text from the end. The new version is here

bell

The issue is very simple and I cannot be wrong, absolutely. A detector value is a vector, in the proof of Bell’s theorem it is expressed in the basis of wave functions. Notice this, this is not the basis of detector values. It is a projection of a detector value to the basis of wave functions. Therefore we cannot expect that the squares of the coefficients (they are real in this case) sum to one. And this is the scaling error in the proof of Bell’s theorem. It is assumed that the squares sum to one and that assumption leads to a contradiction with an elementary theorem from the probability theory. Even a child can conclude that, yes, elementary mathematics is correct, so the scaling of the detector value must be wrong. And so it is. Let’s see what the editor answers if anything. He did not point out to any errors in his answer, he just rejected the paper without reason. That is the usual case for any paper that has an important content, unless you know the people. (Update February 2019, the editor naturally did not answer anything to the request to read the revised paper. It is just like this with editors any time a “wrong” person sends a paper with some potentially important content. It is different if a “correct” person sends such papers. So, it is not having a Ph.D. or having been a full professor, it is different.)

In the fourth paper I solve the famous EPR paradox. It is just confusion: Bell forgot the other base vector and EPR got mixed up in the earlier version of the paradox.  There is no mystery in observables in quantum mechanics: it is just all mystification of a simple fact. The model is expressed in complex numbers, the reality is in real numbers. When anything is measured it has to be taken from the complex numbers to the reals, i.e., you have to take the norm. This simple operation has been raised by Einstein and some others to a deep mystery.

It looks like quite much is wrong in physics. I can add the photon to the list. Planck and Einstein started claiming that a photon is a wave-particle. This is wrong, a photon is a boson and a boson is a Lagrange multiplier needed to get the U(1) symmetry to quantum electrodynamics. See my recent post on the Yang-Mills problem. It is the field that is discrete and this is the reason for quantization.

These were the immediate results, but the important results are what can be deduced from them.

1. Gravitation is a flow of space volume elements. They flow to a hole in a mass point. They cannot disappear, so there is another physical world behind the hole. There also has to be antigravitation in our world. It is creation of new space elements somewhere in the area between stars. Some phenomena, like supernovas, may be related to antigravitation.
2. There are not only at least two physical worlds, maybe more, but there is a non-physical world. The model does not explain consciousness or the birth of life. See my posts of the exon mutation probability problem in darwinism. These are external to the 3-world, just like the time is external. Soul-body dualism is true. The soul is not born when an animal is born, nor is it destroyed when the animal is destroyed. The physical world, being discrete, is the less real of the two worlds.
3. There are two spirits, not to be confused with minds/souls. The spirits are the spirit of truth and the spirit of lies. The world governed by the power, that is money, is raised from the birth to believe in the lie. The truth is easy to find if one looks for it, but few look for it. The denial of the other world and these spirits is the essence of the lie. How do I derive that there are such spirits? It is easy. Not all people on a field are stupid or crooked, so why do they not see the errors? Something stops them and that cannot be fear or similar feelings. They simply do not notice the errors and there must be a reason why they do not notice them. Something makes them blind.

All of this I can now show with calculations, but few will read them, fewer will understand them and hardly anybody will accept the truth in them, but so be it. There is the big lie. It is also in physics, but you find it even better from history. I wrote many posts in this blog of the lie in some topics. I think it is a spirit and a fundamental concept in every true theory of physics and reality.