Your new thesis: Removing Singularities from Physics

[bdnelson111]

Hey all you aspiring young physics students out there, I have a nice master's thesis or doctoral thesis for you. Removing singularities from QM or GR. My math skills are exhausted, I'm just an engineer with 8th grade math skills. I did however, create singularity fee, quantized versions of Plank's Law, Einstein's energy-momentum eqaution and deBroglie's wave equation. Same results, just new derivations (this is not a new theory, just new versions). The key is to introduce a minumim allowed energy quanta with a fixed wavelength.

check it out at nosingularities.com, carry this idea forward if you feel so inclined.

thks
brian

[WhoaNonstop]

I have a nice master's thesis or doctoral thesis for you. Removing singularities from QM or GR.

I'd die of boredom. Twice.

-Riley

[negru]

um ok how is the minimum wavelength compatible with lorentz invariance?

[bfollinprm]

um ok how is the minimum wavelength compatible with lorentz invariance?

For once negru and I were thinking the same thing. Distances are only definable absolutely in 4space, and only then in an inertial massless frame.

[bdnelson111]

from an energy standpoint, the minimum unit energy I describe is a fixed value in Jolues, its wavelength comes from Plank's Law. It is invarient under Lorentz transformations because it is always moving at light speed. Look at Figure (1) under Einstein's section from my website. In this case energy chains always move at light speed, sublight speed just means its moving in a helical fashion, with the net velocity only being a component of light speed. (the lead of the helix).

Again, this is not a new theory, just a new version of Einstein's equations. Any equation from special reletivity you'd like me to convert I would be happy to.

-thks

[CarlBrannen]

from an energy standpoint, the minimum unit energy I describe is a fixed value in Jolues, its wavelength comes from Plank's Law. It is invarient under Lorentz transformations because it is always moving at light speed.

Light is always moving at light speed and yet, when it is Lorentz transformed, the energy in a photon changes. That's because the energy has to do with the wavelength and on changing the wavelength the energy changes.

This is also true when you Lorentz transform an (energy, momentum) vector. The energy does, in fact, change.

I'm not saying your theory doesn't work. That would require a lot more effort on my part, effort that I don't have the time to spend. I'm quite sympathetic with the motivation. And I also believe that there is an energy that is constant under Lorentz transformations. But what I'm saying is that it is not compatible with the transformation of energy and momentum by the usual Lorentz transformation. You need to be more radical on this, to get what you want.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[midwestphysics]

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Absolutely and undeniably awesome, in no uncertain terms.

[CarlBrannen]

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Along this line, my personal favorite is 't Hooft's comment:

HOW to BECOME a BAD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST

On your way towards becoming a bad theoretician, take your own immature theory, stop checking it for mistakes, don't listen to colleagues who do spot weaknesses, and start admiring your own infallible intelligence. Try to overshout all your critics, and have your work published anyway. If the well-established science media refuse to publish your work, start your own publishing company and edit your own books. If you are really clever you can find yourself a formerly professional physics journal where the chief editor is asleep.

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theoristbad.html

This is my favorite because he's chief editor of Foundations of Physics and nevertheless published my explanation for the combined question of "where does spin-1/2 come from" and "why are there three generations?" I.e.:

Spin Path Integrals and Generations
http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.3114