Posts Tagged ‘quantum gravity’

On the Nature of Quantum-Geometrical space

This is the updated chapter of Quantum-Geometry Dynamics; An Axiomatic Approach to Physics on quantum-geometrical space in which I propose a dynamic space discreteness and show Euclidian geometry emerges from it.


An Axiomatic Approach to Physics

Notice: QGD as greatly evolved since An Axiomatic Approach to Physics was written.  I will keep the article and link below for reference, but most recent developments see Quantum-Geometry Dynamics; an axiomatic approach to physics.

Quantum-geometry dynamics; a theory derived from a minimal set of axioms can describe, explain and predict the behaviour of dynamic systems.
First, we will introduce a set of axioms and corollaries which will be used to fundamentally define space, mass, momentum, energy and forces. This will be followed by a discussion of quantum-geometrical space and its geometry. Then, we will show how gravity emerges naturally from the axiom set and propose a new equation for gravity that can be applied at different scales. At the same time, we will provide quantum-geometrical interpretations of the laws of motion and use them to describe dynamic systems. We will follow by providing quantum-geometrical grounds for key predictions of special relativity, general relativity and Newtonian mechanics. Although quantum-geometry dynamics will be shown to be in agreement with physical observations and with the predictions of special and general relativity, quantum-geometry dynamics allows for distinct falsifiable predictions that set it apart from them.


I would like to acknowledge the editorial help of my good friends Mark Batten-Carew (first and longtime supporter of QGD) and Pete Bonkemeyer (enthusiastic new supporter), of mathematicians Ben Dribus and Keli Etscorn for their comments, impressions and for going over the math, and special thanks to physicist and friend Xiaoxiao Wang for his excellent suggestions, to astrophysicist Martín López Corredoira for taking the time to read this latest paper and encouraging me to continue my research and publish my predictions, and to Meng-Chwan Tan, for taking time from his busy schedule to provide needed advice. Thank you all for your open mindedness to new ideas.

An Axiomatic Approach to Physics (new draft)

Download PDF file

The Dark Matter Effect

The subject of dark matter is probably one of the most intriguing in physics today. Hardly a day goes by that doesn’t have someone claiming to possess the theory that explains dark matter. Dark matter, or should I say the dark matter effect, is the subject of so much speculation and theories (most of which are mutually exclusive) that the last thing I wanted to do was to add to the noise which is why I have referred to it only within the larger context of gravitational interactions.

Another problem, if you can call It that, is that QGD ‘s explanation of the dark matter effect is too simple. The effect emerges naturally from QGD’s postulates. In fact, dark matter is at the very core of quantum-geometry dynamics. You see, if quantum-geometry dynamics is correct, the dark matter effect is simply the macroscopic effect of free preons(+). In other words, dark matter is made of free preons(+).

We have described preons(+) has being the fundamental particle of matter in detail. Preons(+) form all other particles, including photons. Individually, they interact orders of magnitude more weakly than the even the least massive photons, which is why no instruments can detect them directly, but over sufficiently large regions of space, their collective mass is sufficient to gravitationally interact with and affect the behavior of light and massive structures.

Dark matter, contrary to beliefs, is not dark. Dark, by definition, is said of something that does not emit light. QGD contends that dark matter has been observed and studied for nearly five decades. You see, according to QGD, the only matter that existed in the primordial universe was in the form of preons(+) which were uniformly distributed throughout quantum-geometrical space. We’ll call this state, the isotropic state, one in which nothing existed but dark matter.

During the isotropic state, preons(+), as a consequence of the attractive force acting between them, started to form the simplest of all structures; neutrinos and photons. And because preons(+) were distributed isotropically, so were these newly formed photons. These isotropically distributed photons have been discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson and called the comic microwave background radiation.

A number of theories can satisfactorily describe physical phenomena and at the same time be coherent, consistent with reality while being mutually exclusive. Mutually exclusive theories can’t all be right so the ultimate test, the only valid test of a theory is the predictions that it makes that are original to it and can be verified experimentally or observationally. So what original predictions can be drawn from QGD that can be tested in the real world? And how do can we know that QGD is correct in its description of dark matter?

One of the most obvious implications of QGD is that sufficiently large regions of quantum-geometrical space (minimally the size of a small galaxy) should contain the same amount of preons(+), or, since the preons(+) is the fundamental unit of mass, have the same mass. That is, {{m}_{{{R}_{1}}}}={{m}_{{{R}_{2}}}} where {{R}_{1}} and {{R}_{2}} are regions of the same volume (the volume being defined quantum-geometrically as the number of preons(-) it contains).

Also, the mass of any regions of space is the sum of its free preons(+), {{p}^{\left( + \right)}}  , and its bounded preons(+), {{p}^{\left\langle + \right\rangle }} , that is: \displaystyle {{m}_{{{R}_{i}}}}={{m}_{p_{i}^{\left( + \right)}}}+{{m}_{p_{i}^{\left\langle + \right\rangle }}} where \displaystyle {{m}_{p_{i}^{\left( + \right)}}}  and \displaystyle {{m}_{p_{i}^{\left\langle + \right\rangle }}} are respectively the mass of free preons(+) which form dark matter, and bounded preons(-) which for visible matter. To give an example, a region which may appear to be empty must have the same mass as a region of comparable size that is occupied by a galaxy or galaxies. The difference being that in the latter a great number of preons(+) are bound, hence concentrated, in material structures.

QGD Prediction

From the above, since the intensity of the CMBR within a region of space must be proportional to the number of free preons(+) it contains and inversely proportional to the amount of visible matter, the more visible matter a region contains, the weaker the CMBR should be. QGD predicts an inverse correlation between the amount of visible matter and the intensity of the CMBR. Thus, a sufficiently detailed CMBR map is expected to provide a snap shot of the distribution of free preons(+) or what scientist call dark matter.

Dark Matter and the Pioneer and Mercury Anomalies

When taken into account, the dark matter in our own solar system provides a simple explanation of the Pioneer anomaly and the perihelion precession of Mercury.

Supporting Observations

Interested readers may find some the descriptions of supporting observations in the following articles.

For who is willing to do a little bit of research, there is an enormous amount of observational data that supports the QGD’s explanation and predictions about the dark matter effect. A more extensive list will be provide in the second edition of Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics.