I’ve adopted a slightly less provocative title for the paper itself, that is, Clifford Algebra Model in Phase Space, but I am sure you can read between the lines. It’s not ready to go to the arXiv yet, so you can read it here (https://robwilson1.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/camps.pdf) first. Carry on CAMPing, happy CAMPers!
Update: There is now an arXiv version (somewhat surprisingly) at https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.04278/ and a further update here at https://robwilson1.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/camps3.pdf. I’m still working on it, so there may be further updates in due course.
Hidden assumptions 
April 1, 2024 at 9:37 am |
You will see in the paper that I prove that GR is not equal to GPR, that is General Relativity does not satisfy the General Principle of Relativity.
The word “General” here is misleading, so it is better to replace it by “Einstein”, which is more specific. Then one can make the distinction more clearly: ER satisfies EPR, but not GPR. Then the Hamiltonian model of relativity is the real GR, because GR satisfies GPR but not EPR.
GR is dead! Long live GR!
April 1, 2024 at 9:51 am |
Or perhaps I should call this model the Complete Hamiltonian Algebraic Model of Physics (the CHAMP for short!).
April 1, 2024 at 9:55 am |
OK, a lot of your paper looks excellent (I’ve not checked details), but I’m just praying you know what you’re doing with gravity and neutrinos: you are aware that the weak force is the main charge of the left handed neutrino, and that the cross-section for neutrino-proton scattering is 10^{-11} millibarns, contrasted to 10^{-77} millibarns for the graviton-proton scattering cross-section?
You can check these figures in Table 1 of Stuart Raby et al, “Particles Physics and the Standard Model”, Los Alamos Science, Summer/Fall 1984, pp23-53. This data is also quoted on page 1, Figure 1 of my https://vixra.org/pdf/1111.0111v1.pdf and it’s not speculative. The weak cross-section is from experiments, the gravity cross-section is from Feynman’s rules, using experimental data as inputs. It’s a fact.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here, but the only way I can imagine fermionic neutrinos being gravity is, if right-handed neutrinos exist, and have mass (mass = “gravitational field charge”). I don’t know, maybe you’re right. I do suspect however, you might be right if you are considering a two-way exchange of radiation, because the overlap of spin-1/2 radiation going in two directions at once cancels self-induction problems.
One problem of “quantum gravity” has always been that because the field quanta carry energy which is in GR equivalent to mass (i.e. to “quantum gravity’s charge”), gravitation must supposedly be Yang-Mills, not Abelian like Maxwell’s equations are supposed to be. For my sins, I’ve discovered from Catt’s transmission line experiment (charge capacitor = charged transmission line, with internal cancellation of B fields in a dynamic way), Maxwell’s theory is really a simplified Yang-Mills. The key difference between Maxwell and Yang-Mills field equations is the charge transfer term, and there are simple mechanisms (totally taboo to gormless QFT theorists, it seems) that prohibit charge transfer (infinite self-inductance for example), thus reducing one set of equations to the other. Crazy-sounding, but true!
April 1, 2024 at 10:24 am |
Details like that are for later. What matters for now is that I have cleared the field of all the mathematical contradictions. It is now possible to go right back to the beginning and re-build the entire theory of physics on a rigorous consistent mathematical basis, which has never been possible before.
For this, one has to go back before 1873, when the Weak Equivalence Principle wormed its way into physics, and take out 150 years of rotten apples from the theory.
April 1, 2024 at 11:09 am |
I believe your derivation of a supposed contradiction in my model is based on the assumption that GR is a correct theory of gravity, and that it is renormalizable. Both are incorrect assumptions.
April 1, 2024 at 1:28 pm
I’m not sure, just raising the question that occurs in my mind. If there should be an issue, April 1 is a good day to publish anyway!
April 1, 2024 at 10:43 am |
“Clifford-Hamilton Algebra Model of Particle Interactions and Orbital Nutation”
CHAMPION!
It may sound contrived, but orbital nutation is what I used to analyse the experimental evidence for a difference between two different types of measurements of electron/proton mass ratio. The point is that Hamiltonian dynamics is renormalizable (technical term for scalable), so can be applied at every scale. Therefore the nutation of the Earth due to the orbital motion of the Moon can be detected in a single hydrogen atom.
And that is precisely what I located in the experimental data from the 1950s and 1960s, which used hydrogen atoms in water molecules to measure the e/p mass ratio. The signature of the orbital nutation was there in the published data from the experiments, causing systematic variation in the derived e/p mass ratio, significant at about 3 sigma (i.e. 99.7% confidence level).
The Standard Model of Particle Physics is unfortunately not perfectly Hamiltonian, and has erased all traces of the original Hamiltonian duality that enables one to calculate the effects of nutation on mass measurements, caused by tiny changes in the local direction of gravity.
April 1, 2024 at 10:55 am |
Indeed, at the quantum level, the Standard Model simply replaces Hamiltonian duality, which you can actually calculate, with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), aka GOK (God only knows).
That means that I can calculate the electron/proton mass ratio, using Hamiltonian duality, from the motion of the Earth, and explain why (a) it doesn’t matter if you use the value measured in 1973 instead of today’s value in a proper renormalizable Hamiltonian model, and (b) it does matter if you use the value measured in 1973 instead of today’s value in a non-renormalizable theory like GR or post-1873 Newtonian dynamics.
April 1, 2024 at 10:58 am |
I think I will define “Modern Physics” as the century from 1873 to 1973. The half-century since 1973 can only reasonably be described as “Post-Modern Physics”.
April 1, 2024 at 2:38 pm |
Robert: it may be essential to find some way to “sell” this, something exciting to drum up media interest like “cold fusion”, “time travel”, or “a mini big bang” (preferably not a real explosion; the media is a virtue-signalling pacifist, always urging disarmament in the face of terrorism). Otherwise, without support, you fight an entrenched mainstream, a fashion cult of hubris.
“… I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how we would explain what the applications of this work were. ‘Well’, I said, ‘there aren’t any.’ He said, ‘Yes, but then we won’t get support for more research of this kind.’ I think that’s kind of dishonest. If you’re representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you’re doing – and if they don’t want to support you under those circumstances, then that’s their decision.”
– Richard P. Feynman on his friend Carl Sagan in “Surely You’re Joking, Mr Feynman!”, Vintage, London, 1992, page 343.
April 1, 2024 at 3:34 pm |
Very true. There are definite applications to MOND and explaining the structure of galaxies (and possibly the whole universe), so these are the people I want to get interested first, if I can. No Dark Matter, no Dark Energy, possibly even no Big Bang. Do you think “No Big Bang” would sell it to the pacifists?!
April 1, 2024 at 5:07 pm
I got a grade A in multimedia marketing module at Gloucestershire University. (Some idiot had suggested it would qualify to market physics theories. Complete tosh.) This means that I know nothing of course. Until I did that course, I was selling articles successfully to Electronics World magazine and even to the Mail on Sunday. Afterwards, rejection rate went to 100%. 😦
April 1, 2024 at 3:39 pm |
No expanding universe – it’s an illusion like a centrifugal force, caused by our galaxy rotating. Observations are corrected for the linear motion of the Solar System within the galaxy, but not for the rotation.
But of course, these are things I must not say to the scientists, only to the journalists!
April 1, 2024 at 5:12 pm
Redshifts of distant clusters of galaxies, abundances of light elements, and cosmic background radiation: the three cornerstones proving some kind of big bang. If you say the big bang never happened, April 1 is the right day. I’m totally censored out for correcting big bang theory/quantum gravity and successfully predicting dark energy (quantitatively from the quantum gravity mechanism) before its discovery. Woit called it “nonsense” with no discussion whatsoever, 20 years ago. Be careful, getting personally devoted to a theory in an age of bigotry is not good for mental health after the first thousand rejections…
April 1, 2024 at 6:12 pm |
I’m a total ignoramus on these things, which is why I’ve never posted before. Howver, I’ve been tell Robert for years he has to go for the popular press, however you want to define that.
April 1, 2024 at 8:26 pm
Oliver: the parts of Robert’s new paper – https://robwilson1.files.wordpress.com/2024/04/camps.pdf – which I find most interesting are the sections 1.1 through 2.2, quite technical mathematically. My question about section 2.3 is not a damnation at all, because I’ve not printed it out and gone through the earlier sections 1.1-2.2 with a fine tooth comb. (I’m trying to write a book about the physical mechanism of quantum field theory, to be edited by Nicola Talbot, and I know Robert is working in precisely the areas where my knowledge is weakest. This means it’s hardest for me to assess this stuff, but if I can, I will. Hopefully others will take an interest, but the whole “peer review” system in physics seems corrupted.)