HTML page with the theory:
http://24.236.152.228:65333/A%20unification%20theory.htm

Home page:
http://members.triton.net/daveb/

Even though he presents no qualifications, his ideas are intriguing and he has clearly put a lot of thought into it. The little bit of math that I checked seems correct. The only flaws I see are some of his assumptions, which could be valid. I don't think I'm qualified to judge this theory so...

I'd like to hear comments about it and any flaws you find. (He would probably like to hear them too, by email.)

Notes:
The author is Dave Barwacz. His email address is: daveb@triton.net
Mr Barwacz presents no qualifications/degrees to the reader. I've been unable to turn up any other papers by him. The only "real" person with that name that I have found is below.
A USSearch turned up a David Michael Barwacz in Grand Rapids, Michigan, age 54.
Searchbug turned up the same result.

Actually this is interesting! after reading the paper, I recalled the Royal Institute Christmas Lectures from a couple of years ago:Time.

During these lectures the RI performed an experiment where two atomic clocks were calibrated and one sent on a plane to Shangai, and returned to the lecture theatre on the final day, re-calibrated and hey presto there was a diff in 'atomic' time shown by both clocks. I sent the gaurdian responsible for time keeping an E-mail stating that the clocks were calibrated using a connecting wire about 4ft in length, and that both clocks were seperated by a distance(in linear space) of about 3-4ft?

I proposed that there should be two atomic clocks built that was, in effect connected by a laser beam that goes between the 'top' and 'bottom' clocks, via holes in the base of clock 'A' and the top casing of clock 'B', the clocks would be as near as possible then in a initial frame of reference at the moment of calibration, the clocks would have to be made so the 'top' clock could seperate from the 'bottom' clock and the experiment would then yeild a better representation of:two clocks sharing the same 'initial' spacetime.

The 'scale exclusion principle' seems to come to mind here, no two objects of the same 'size/scale' can share the same space. As most of the matter made in the universe is Phase dependant, it seems logical that say, Electrons are representative of a perticular Phase Space.

Electrons occupy the same 'space', they are made from the same thing anywhere in the universe, but they are not 'all' made in the same spacetime!Location!..Location!..Location! Every Electron needs a place they call Home?

Why could this not be true with modern laws, theories, evidence?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heumpje:
The author of this "theory" is/was also a member of this forum. You can find him under the name dr_strangelove... See this thread.

"More is different" - P.W Anderson

---

I am the author of the paper.

I am still working on it and hope to draft a new version soon.

To schwartzchildradius999,

You comment about “the period” of rotation. What I am proposing is a fundamental period of rotation through space time, not just space. Obviously the earth rotates around the sun many billions of times for each revolution through space time. We cannot detect the relative amount of space to time in our local vicinity. What we can find is a difference in the relative amount of space and time of an object at a sufficient distance. The pioneer space craft for example.

There isn’t a real acceleration, but rather a slight distortion in the space to time ratio. In essence a slight rotation of space time relative to us. It is this, that gives the illusion of a velocity decrease and hence led NASA to propose acceleration. I took the time difference calculated by my simple formula and determine the velocity decrease that one would correlate to, in a constant space time. From that I found the acceleration that would be necessary to achieve this, in that constant space time. It is surprisingly close to NASA’s value.

As to your comment on relative motion:

If one were to travel to the pioneer and then by whatever means come to rest relative to the earth, he/she would not detect any anomalous time rate change. It would be traveling at the velocity expected. This anomalous time rate change can only be observed for very fast objects that have traveled for a sufficient time relative to an observer at sufficient distance. That is why it has not been observed in orbiting satellites or anywhere else. The pioneer and the two other distant craft are the only objects in the known universe that we have tracked the motion of from it origin to any substantial distance. It therefore is not unreasonable to suspect that our notions of relative motion might need refinement.

I find this theory fascinating Dr. Strangelove. I just wish I was qualified to analyze it properly. I could always go back to school I guess. Good luck with the thoery.

I am pleased to announce that I have been successful in deriving the 4 relativistic energy momentum equations produced by the Dirac Matrices.

Dirac developed these basically by trial and error and he himself had no explanation why they work. I believe a high school student could understand my derivation. It is that simple.

The derivation is based on simple geometry in cyclic space time.

This breakthrough, in my opinion, provides evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that space and time are cyclic.

The theory can be downloaded or viewed in html at http://members.triton.net/daveb

In the MS word version it is on page 23. One should read my derivation of the Lorentz transforms before reading the Dirac matrices derivation..

In his paper (which can be found here Physics and Logic) it is clear from what (philosophical) perspective he is creating this new theory.

Let me cite some part:

quote:

---

Physicists have been successful in taking the macroscopic things we perceive and molding their properties into mathematical equations in attempts to understand microscopic things. By working in this “backwards” fashion they have generated many good theories, which unfortunately get more and more complex even though common sense might expect things to become simpler.

One could expect that the building blocks of something should not be more complicated then the structure into which they assemble. Try to describe a two by four in terms of the number of bathrooms and windows in a house. If all you could see and knew about were the bathrooms and windows you would have a formidable task. Your description of a two by four would end up being a function of the variables bathrooms and windows. If someone found a flaw in your description (no doubt there would be many) you could patch the formula to account for it, which in most cases would make it even more complex.

In the past, theories have been built with the underlying assumption that space and time, particles and forces etc. exist. The particles have been given many strange properties and space and time have been bent and twisted but the assumptions of the very existence of these always remain.

In this paper I do not assume the existence of space, time, matter or energy.

I will show that simple logic may be behind the constructs of this universe. I will show that actual working theories can be developed using this premise. In fact, some unanswered questions of physics such as baryon asymmetry of the universe, the uncertainty principle and the wave nature of particles, quarks and possibly even gravity can be explained quite simply.

It has long been accepted that there is a connection between the observer and the observable and that the very nature of consciousness may play a role in measurements of physical values. The global consciousness project ( see http://noosphere.princeton.edu/) has logged some surprising results suggesting that consciousness may indeed affect the physical world.

One could write volumes on the “interplay” of consciousness and the physical world and I am sure it has been done. I will not belabor that point but simply state that after much reflection one must conclude that consciousness could very well be all that exists.

If so, then we can start with the assumption that a type or types of logic rather than an assumption of space/time and matter/energy may give some insight into the nature of the “things” we perceive.

---

Saying this in other words, this so-called Theoretical Physicist drops Materialism in the trash, and claims that we can build a Theory of the outside world (by first rejecting it's existence) by only using the Logic of the Mind to build up an adequate theory. But without an outside material world, neither his or our mind would exist, and no logic would exist. After all, we all know that minds are based on material processes, and without them, no mind could exist.

He claims that the oustide world does not exist in a material way (matter that is ever changing and has time and space as it's mode of existence), but that it ultimately drops down to logic concepts of the mind. So it is Idealism in it's purest form.

What use are his ideas of the world, if that world only exists in the Logic of the Mind, and does not correspond to an "outside" material world in any form or substance, which he denies any real existence.

If you really know it there should be a statement you can make, about human potential which some would say absolutely outrageous(I am not refering to precognition in this case). So what is it chum.

I never said that was my philosophy, only that it was one possible approach.

My unification Theory does not depend on that philosophy. It is a totally separate theory.

I present it only as food for thought.

If it is that distasteful to your “intellectual” palate, don’t read it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dr_strangelove:
heusdens,

I never said that was my philosophy, only that it was one possible approach.

My unification Theory does not depend on that philosophy. It is a totally separate theory.

I present it only as food for thought.

If it is that distasteful to your “intellectual” palate, don’t read it.

---

It's not distastefull, just it doesn't make sense.

But I will distinguish between your philosphical remark and your theory under development.

Acc. to my point of view there is no Unification Theory or Theory of Everything. We just have to deal with incomplete knowledge, but this does not withstand the fact that we can always increase our kowledge and understanding.

I just developed a simple trig function from my theory that gives the relativistic energy levels of the hydrogen atom.

Try it: E= u((1/cosQ)-1)

Where Q=inverse tan(X/n) in radians. n is the principal quantum number.
u is the reduced mass of the electron: 510720.755 eV

X= 1/137.043296333 and is a new, more fundamental fine structure constant.

To get the value of the fine structure constant, first find Q for n=1 (this is what I call the fine structure angle), then calculate as follows

alpha=(tanQ)/(cos^2(Q))

I can also get he exact form of the Dirac energy equation for hydrogen. So far I can account for the principle quantum number. The other quantum numbers just appear as variables, but I think I can get those as intergers as well.

All thses formula will make perfect sense when I write it up. I'll post another message when it is available.

I just found that by using 1/137.0343 for X in the previous post, I get the exact value for every line in the Lyman series.

The calculated line wave lengths are exactly equal to measured values as published in the 2002 CRC handbook of chemistry and physics.

No other formula, including Diracs, gives these values exactly. I have tried altering the value of the fine structure constant and the reduced mass of the electron in Diracs formula. Obviously by doing so, I can get any one line exact, but the other lines are then off.

I must note that I cannot use the same value to get exact wave lengths for other series. Although the values calculated remain as accurate as predicted by Diracs equation.

I hope to have this discrepancy resolved very soon.

I have had a number of emails asking to see the derivation of the hydrogen spectrum formula.

I have a rough draft of paper about 50 % done. I posted it at:

http://24.236.152.228:65333/A%20Unification%20Theory_d1.htm

I am so close to so many major breakthroughs that I am having to balance my time between theorizing and writing up what I have already.

I could use help.

Specifically in the following area:

If my theory is correct the Dirac equation for the energy levels of large Z atoms should be off measurably.

Is anyone aware of any experiments that have suggested an error in the Dirac formula?

My guess is that a measurable error should occur at a Z of about 25.

I will give appropriate written acknowledgement to anyone who contributes when I publish.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dr_strangelove:
The fat lady is about to sing.

---

I presume she will be singing about fish?...fresh fish at that!!

Just look at the big board!!

Knowing only basic high school physics, I am unfortunately not able to assist this in anyway, nor am I able to critique it at all. So I am unable to guage for myself whether it is good or not.

What I am able to do, is see that through the two threads this idea has passed, it has so far attracted fair attention, a few critic points, though no real bad press. Normally by now, all sorts of people are getting really upset at the presented idea and calling the originator uneducated, misinformed and/or crazy.

You haven't been DS. This is exciting! =)

I actiually have been called a name or two on another forum site.

Names, I can't repeat in mixed company.

I presently have a physics proffessor at a major university and also a Harvard graduate who is the head of a major reasearch instiitute both taking a look at the theory. They were very impressed with the Lyman series formula.

Nothing negative from them yet. Knock on wood.

Interesting theory. Your Lyman series calculations are incredible.

Is anyone aware of any other quantum calculation that matche experimental values as well. I have search the net and not found any. I asked my physics prof and he is umawae of any.

Do you think you will be able to get the rest of the lines as exact?

What about spin orbet coupling and the lamb shift?

Keep up the good work.