NOTE: Some mathematical expressions embedded in the text had been omitted in the process of uploading the article. This has now been corrected for online article but not for RSS feeds.

A physics theory is required to describe, explain and predict. Nothing less, nothing more.

There is, of course, a lot of politics surrounding the theoretical physics industry and other reasons why a theory will be accepted or rejected, or come into favour, even rise to become dominant only to fall out of favour when new experimental results come up. I will try here to stir away from the politics of physics and write about what makes a theory scientifically successful (as opposed to sociologically successful).

A physics theory must describe a certain class of phenomena, explain them satisfactorily and make predictions which can be experimentally or observationally confirmed.

I received an email a few days ago from a German physicist who was quite disturbed by the fact that, as he puts it, quantum-geometry dynamics, as explained in Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics, goes against much of the dominant theories of physics. Not only does it not fit with dominant theories, it approaches the problem of developing a fundamental theory of reality axiomatically rather than empirically.

He was right of course. QGD does question a number of notions and concepts which we have come to accept (often unconsciously) as absolute truths. For example, all dominant theories are based on the axiom of continuity of space. QGD is founded on the axiom of discreteness of space. Not only does QGD consider space to be discrete, it proposes that space be the result of the interactions between preons(-); one of only two types fundamental particles the theory admits. Thus space is dimensionalized by preons(-).

QGD can be understood as a physics theory of quantum-geometrical space that implies that the structure of space determines the structure of matter and not the reverse.

QGD explains that the constancy of the speed of light is a direct consequence of the quantum-geometrical structure of space and shows that time is a purely relational concept having no physical reality. This is in disagreement with special relativity.

QGD also considers that mass is a fundamental property of matter and proposes that all matter is made of preons(+), the second type of fundamental particles. So all the particles which physics considers fundamental are, according to the QGD model, composite particles. Even photons, are shown to be composite particles made of preons(+). Thus QGD is in opposition with the standard model of quantum mechanics.

Finally, since a direct implication of space being quantum-geometrical is that the Universe evolved from an isotropic state rather than a singularity, it is also doesn’t sit well with the Big Bang theory.

The examples above concede that QGD disagrees with dominant theories in physics. So what?

When working on QGD, one of my biggest concern was to follow the laws of the initial axiomatic set rigorously so as to avoid coercing the theory into agreeing with any other theory. In other words, I wanted to let the theory develop in a manner consistent with its axiom set. Also as important as avoiding coercing the QGD to agree with another theory, it was essential to avoid contriving it to agree with experimental and observational data (which is another mistake science makes), but instead only compare explanations and predictions which have first been rigorously derived from the axiom set.

All a theory of physics is required to do is describe, explain and predict the behaviour of physical systems. It needs to agree with physical reality, not with other theories however successful they may be. So the only important question about quantum-geometry dynamics should be: does it agree with reality? I’ll let you, patient reader, be the judge.

What QGD describes?

QGD is a theory of fundamental reality which not only describes systems at the most fundamental level but shows that all phenomena, at any scale of physical of reality, can be described in terms of its two fundamental particles and associated fundamental forces.

Also, while physics provides definitions for notions such as mass, energy, momentum, quantum-geometry dynamics forces us to rethink those notions. It also provides a clear physical explanation of laws of conservation.

What QGD explains?

QGD explains why space is quantum-geometrical (it is the largest structure in the Universe) and is emergent.

That gravity is a composite force of the two fundamental forces and shows in a manner consistent with its principle and observations that the electromagnetic, the strong and weak forces are in fact effects resulting from the two fundamental forces.

It proposes an equation for gravitational interactions from which all forces can be derived. Other effects that can be derived are the dark matter and dark energy effects, which are particular solutions of the equation, the mechanisms of the different forms of particles decay and more.

What QGD predicts?

Predictions, specifically original predictions, provide the only real test for a theory. Any number of models can be built that can satisfactorily explain observations a posteriori, but only a solid theory can make predictions that can be experimentally tested.

Some of QGD predictions which have received some encouraging though insufficient experimental validation are the exclusion of the Higgs boson, the inexistence of extra-dimensions and superluminal relative speed of neutrinos (not absolute superluminal speed, since QGD predicts that neutrinos, like photons, can only move at the speed of light).

Why no Higgs Mechanism?

QGD shows mass to be a fundamental property of matter, that is, it is an indissociable property of preons(+). Thus the mass of an object, expressed in fundamental units, is simply the number preons(+) it contains (and energy, the number of preons(+) times the fundamental unit of kinetic energy). So since mass is a property of the fundamental particle of preons(+), it doesn’t require the existence of the Higgs boson or anything similar to the Higgs mechanism to convey mass. In fact, unlike gauge theories where many physical properties are extrinsic, fundamental properties displayed by each of the two fundamental particles are intrinsic to them.

The readers might find interesting that Newton’s law of universal gravity follows naturally from the QGD’s axiom for space and matter. Here’s how.

Considering any two gravitationally interacting objects a and b, we have all the preons(+) of structure a interacting with all preons(+) of structure b, then the contribution of their masses to the gravitational effect is directly proportional to the products of their masses, which can also corresponds to the number of preonic interactions between a and b. And when we take into account the effect of distance, which corresponds the number of preon(-) interactions between any two preons(+) belonging respectively to a and b, we get

Where d is the distance generated by preons(-) between a and b, and k is the proportionality constant between the fundamental forces associated with preons(-) and preons(+), respectively n-gravity and p-gravity (see Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics for detailed explanation).

This equation, is in agreement with Newton’s law of gravitation at the non-fundamental scale, that is, when the quantum-geometrical distance between two objects is such that n-gravity and p-gravity are in near equilibrium but positive. Thus Newton’s law of gravitation is an approximation of the QGD equation when the following are satisfied.

For those who aren’t familiar with QGD (which is most of you at this time), the constant k is one of one two constants required by the theory (the other one being c). Both are natural and fundamental. Also, all QGD measurement units are in natural non-arbitrary units.

Why QGD excludes of extra-dimensions

From space being an emergent property of preons(-), it follows that all dimensions of space must be physically equivalent (preons(-) don’t exist in space, they generate it). Since all dimensions (the mutually orthogonal directions from any point in physical space) are similar, motion in all along all existing dimensions must be possible and observable. Hence, if space is quantum-geometrical as defined by QGD, there can’t be any hidden or otherwise inaccessible dimensions.

Let us assume for a moment that space consists of more than three dimensions. If space has 3 + n dimensions then, since all emergent dimensions must be physically similar, it should be possible to draw sets of 3+ n mutually orthogonal lines through any point in space (preon(-)). And, we should be able to move along any of the 3 + n physical dimensions. But, observation and experiments confirm that we can’t create sets consisting of more than three mutually orthogonal lines so it follows that n = 0.

So, because all physical dimensions within our physical reality must be visible and since there can be only three visible dimensions, quantum-geometrical space, hence the Universe, must be tridimensional.

That said, extra dimensions are not entirely excluded (we certainly possess the mathematical models to describe them), but should they exist, their existence cannot be inferred from any interactions within the physical geometry of our universe. Hence, it does not matter whether extra dimensions exist. Their existence, if space is quantum-geometrical, is irrelevant to the physics of our reality.

Of course, string theory proposes strong arguments to the contrary and I encourage readers to review them as well.

About Superluminal Speeds

Superluminal are predicted and explained (see chapter 7 of Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics). Recent results from the OPERA group support this prediction (see earlier blogs on the OPERA results).

However, the reader should take note that the OPERA results are not definitive and have yet to be confirmed by other experiments. That said, I am confident they will be.

This concludes the first part of this blog. In the second part, I will discuss a number of predictions that are original with quantum-geometry dynamics and which can be tested experimentally. And as most of QGD predictions, the reader is forewarned that not efforts have been made to make them fit dominant theories and as a result may be found to be intellectually offensive.

(Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics volume 1 can be downloaded from here. Click here to read part 2 of the article.

A number of physicists have claimed that the neutrinos emitted by supernova SN 1987A constitute counter-evidence against the OPERA results which indicate neutrinos travelling at superluminal speeds.

The argument goes as follow. Neutrinos emitted by the SN 1987A supernova arrived approximately three hours before visible light emitted by the same source. Considering the estimated distance of the SN 1987A, if neutrinos had been travelling at speeds comparable to those measured by the OPERA group, the supernova neutrinos would have arrived not three hours but approximately four years before visible light from the same source.

Although the argument appears to make sense, it holds only if the superluminal speed measured by the OPERA group is taken as being the absolute speed of the neutrinos. But if, as QGD suggests, the superluminal speed of the OPERA neutrinos is the relative speed between neutrinos emitted by CERN and the target as Gran Sasso, that is, the difference between the measured superluminal speed and c corresponds to the absolute speed of the Earth along the CERN-Grand Sasso axis, then the argument loses its meaning.

Thus, according to QGD, the absolute speed of the OPERA neutrinos is the same as the absolute speed of the SN 1987A neutrinos, which is the exactly speed of light.

That said, the relative speed between the supernova neutrinos and the Earth may be different from the speed of light. And since neutrinos can travel only at the speed of light, any difference between the measured speed of neutrinos from a source and c should be attributed to the absolute speed of the Earth along the axis that connect the source to the target or detector. This can be used as the theoretical foundation for the construction of neutrino telescopes. Neutrino telescopes would allow much more precise measurements of cosmic distances and speed than what are possible using current methods.

A complete discussion of the principles behind neutrino telescopes will be included in volume two of my Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics.

-UPDATE- since the following article was posted in September 2011, new data appears to indicate that neutrinos have not measured speeds in excess of the speed of light. But the article Icarus Measures Superluminal Neutrinos underlines that is that the actual data shows measurements of neutrinos speeds in excess of the speed of light and that only the theoretically biased interpretation refutes relative superluminal measurements. -UPDATE-

When the news of the results of the OPERA group indicating that they had measured neutrinos that were travelling faster than the speed of light and that Einstein may be proven wrong, enthusiastic friends and family emailed or called to let me know that what I had predicted over a year ago was now being confirmed.

The news about the superluminal neutrinos caught the scientific world by surprise. None of the dominant theories had predicted, much less can explain the results. As for myself, though I was surprised by the unexpected news, the results of the OPERA group didn’t find me unprepared. The reason is that I had specifically predicted such superluminal speeds in my treatise on quantum-geometry dynamics well over a year ago (see www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/QGD3.pdf ). Not only did QGD predict superluminal speeds but it also explains why neutrinos are more likely than other particles to achieve such relative speeds.

I will explain here what the results of the OPERA group mean according to QGD, but before I do I will ask for a bit of your time in order to introduce you to the basic but distinctive ideas that set quantum-geometry dynamics apart from current dominant theories.

First axiom of QGD: space is discrete, finite and dimensionalized by preons(-)

We all have been taught that space is infinite and continuous (that is, it can be infinitely divided into smaller and smaller regions). Continuity of space implies that between any two points in space, however close they may be, there lies an infinite number of points. QGD predicts the opposite by suggesting that space is finite and discrete (that is, there is a limit beyond which space cannot be subdivided). Therefore, there is a minimum physical distance between two points of space (the fundamental unit of distance) so that, according to QGD, the number of points between any two points in space must be finite. So you can’t subdivide space in segments that are smaller than the fundamental distance.

Another distinctive prediction of QGD is that space is emergent. That is, the dimensions of space result from the interaction between preons(-); which are one of only two types of fundamental of particles predicted by the theory. The dimensionalization of space results from the repulsive force acting between preons(-). That repulsive force, n-gravity, which is discussed in detail my introduction to quantum-geometry dynamics, is one of only two fundamental forces; each of which is carried by on type of fundamental particles. Hence preons(-) being the fundamental particles of space, we define the fundamental distance as that between two adjacent preons(-). You will also note that what exists between two adjacent preons(-) is not space but the unit n-gravity field. No physical object can exist in between preons(-).

Second axiom of QGD: all matter is composed of preons(+).

QGD predicts that all matter is made from the second type of fundamental particles called preons(+). By matter we include all particles, including those which current theories hold as fundamental. So according to QGD, electrons, positrons, neutrinos and even photons are composite particles made of preons(+) and since mass is a fundamental property of preons(+), then even photons have mass (QGD predicts that the Universe evolved from an isotropic state in which preons(+) were evenly distributed through the quantum-geometrical space. This primal state was followed by the formation of photons, the simplest preonic structures, and created what we know as the cosmic microwave background radiation).

Preons(+) travel through space by leaping from preons(-) to preons(-). Since the preon(+) can only make on leap at the time and since the leap is the fundamental unit of distance, then preons(+) move at the fastest possible speed. Light, or photons to be specific, travels at the speed of preons(+). So do neutrinos.

Time is a purely mathematical dimension

This is not an axiom of the theory, but rather a consequence of the first and second axioms; a theorem. From the axioms, the constancy of the speed of light is determined by the structure of space. Photons can move by leaping from preon(-) to preon(-). The leap becomes not only the fundamental unit of distance, but also the fundamental unit of time and their ratio the fundamental unit of speed. Since the constancy of the speed of light relative to quantum-geometrical space is a consequence of the structure of space alone, it does not necessitate the use of the notion of time dilatation.

Time, as understood by QGD, is a pure relational concept which allows comparison between phenomena and periodic and cyclic events (clocks). Time is a mathematical dimension and because it has no physicality, it can’t be unified with spatial dimensions which are undeniably physical. It follows that the concept of space-time and event horizons do not represent physical reality.

Absolute versus Relative Speed

If QGD is correct, then quantum-geometrical space forms a static structure that is physical in the same way that matter is physical. Quantum-geometrical is static but not amorphous. It dynamically interacts with matter. It also forms a background with which and in which matter interacts. Each individual preon(-) is distinct, occupies a specific position relative to other preons(-). Quantum-geometrical space thus as structure and we can define absolute motion as the change in position within it.

Since time is non-physical, we need to have definition of speed that is does not make use of it. We will define the absolute speed of an object as the ratio of the distance it travels over the distance light would travel simultaneously. Photon and neutrinos, for example, travel at the absolute speed of 1. Everything else travels at absolute speeds that are less than one.

Since there is no time and no time dilatation, and since we have taken time out of the definition for speed, we can define the notion of relative speed as follows:

Relative speed is the speed of a structure relative to another structure. The relative speed between two objects is equal to the sum of their absolute speeds along the axis that connects them. For example, if a photon moves towards an object that moves in its direction, then the relative speed between the photon and the object is equal to, where is the speed of light and, the speed of the object. If two photons are on collision course and are coming from diametrically opposite directions, their relative speed is equal to. Notice that though the relative speed between two objects can exceed the speed of light, their absolute speeds cannot exceed it.

Explanation of the OPERA results

According to QGD, neutrinos are composite particles which share structural characteristics with photons which made them travel at the speed of light and only at the speed of light. Based on this and the above discussion, we know that since neutrinos move at the speed of light that the measurement of their speed by the OPERA group is not their absolute speed of the relative speed between the neutrinos and their target. And the target being a point on Earth, we can assume from the definition of relative speed, that the difference between the measured speed of the superluminal neutrinos and the speed of light (the absolute speed of all neutrinos) must be the absolute speed of the Earth along the axis connecting CERN to Gran Sasso (the target).

So what the OPERA team unexpectedly measured is not the absolute speed of neutrinos but indirectly, the absolute speed of the Earth along the CERN-Gran Sasso axis. If this discovery is confirmed, then the OPERA results will indirectly support the existence of quantum-geometrical space.

Implications of the OPERA results

If the OPERA results are confirmed, much of what the dominant theories hold as true will be put into question. The three pillars of physics, special relativity, quantum-mechanics and the Big Bang theory will have to be retrofitted to fit the experimental results or, more likely, will have to make way for new theories.

Special relativity, which provides the foundation for most of current theories, is already put in question. For instance, the theory implies that the mass of an object approaches infinity as it approaches the speed of light and that infinite energy would be required to achieve. In other words, it would take the entire energy of the Universe times infinity to accelerate even a single neutrino to the speed of light. And a neutrino traveling at the speed of light should have infinite mass. So, if the OPERA measurements are confirmed, then the neutrinos evidently not having been supplied with infinite energy and not having infinite mass, special relativity would be showed to be flawed (to say the least).

Other flaws in the theory are also made evident by the OPERA results. Particles traveling faster than the speed of light would travel back in time (if special relativity is correct) which would violate causality (what we understand commonly as a time paradox). To illustrate this, imagine a system made of two devices; one that emits luminal neutrinos and one that emit superluminal neutrinos. Let’s call them device A and device B.

Let device A be triggered by a timer and let this timer be equipped with a neutrino detector that will stop the countdown if it detects a neutrino.

Let device B be equipped with a particle detector which is linked to its trigger so that, when if it detects a neutrino coming from device A, it will shot a superluminal neutrino back at it.

Now with the experiment.

The timer counts down to zero and trigger device A which shots a neutrino toward device B. Device B detects the neutrino from Device A and shots a superluminal neutrinos at back at it. The superluminal neutrino, travelling back in time, reaches device A before the timer triggers the emission of the neutrino and aborts the countdown.

Hence, device A will not emit the neutrino that will trigger device B. But if it doesn’t, then device B will not shot the superluminal neutrinos that will stop the timer. And if device B doesn’t emit the superluminal neutrino then the timer will count down to zero and device will emit the neutrino which will prevent that same neutrino to be emitted. You see the problem. This time paradox is an unavoidable consequence of the idea that time is physical.

Paradoxes emerging from theories always point to inconsistencies in them. QGD, being a consistent axiomatic system does not give rise to such paradoxes. In fact, because QGD follows the principle of strict causality (see chapter 6 of Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics), it doesn’t give rise to any paradox whatsoever.

With time being understood as a purely relational concept, that is, time a mathematical dimension, not a physical dimension, superluminal neutrinos travel only through the three dimensions of quantum-geometrical space. So using in the experiment above, superluminal neutrinos do not violate causality. QGD also shows causality to be a series of events where each event triggers the next one. According to QGD, the superluminal neutrino from device B cannot arrive at device A before it emits a luminal neutrinos.

Predictions regarding the duplication of the OPERA results

The test of any theory is not how well it fits with dominant theories (QGD makes no effort to do so), but whether or not the original predictions it makes are experimentally confirmed. If this is true, then quantum-geometry dynamics is doing good. Not only did QGD predict and explain superluminal speed over a year ago (see page 46 of Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics), but it implies the exclusion of the Higgs boson (chapters 6 and 15) and the non-existence of extra-dimensions (chapters 3, 11 and 15). QGD also makes a number of other predictions which will be discussed in the next post, but for now, we’ll conclude with the predictions QGD makes for experiments that will attempt to replicate the results from the OPERA group.

QGD proposes that the difference between the speed of the relative superluminal neutrinos and the speed of light corresponds to the absolute speed of the Earth along the axis that joins the source and target of the neutrinos. Therefore, the speed of neutrinos in future experiments will be a function of the angle between the source-target axis and the plane of motion of the Earth around the centre of the galaxy.

Future experiments will show that neutrinos’ speed will vary slightly depending on the orientation of the axis between the source and target of neutrinos. The relative speed of the neutrinos will be exactly the speed of light when the axis is perpendicular to the absolute direction of the Earth (it’s important here to insist that we’re not talking about the speed of the Earth relative to the Sun, the centre of the galaxy or relative to any other object). The speed of the neutrinos will be at its minimum and less than c when the axis between the source and target is parallel to the axis of absolute direction of the Earth with neutrinos moving in the same direction as the Earth. And the maximum relative superluminal speed will be achieve when the axis between source and target is parallel with the absolute direction of the Earth and the neutrinos move in opposite direction from that of the Earth. The difference between this maximum relative speed and the speed of light will be approximately 220km/sec plus or minus adjustments to take into account the difference between geometric and quantum-geometric distances.