Someone actually managed to point out an error I made – I mistakenly reported that LIGO had found a lower bound on the rest mass of gravitons when it was actually an upper bound. I have reworked the article.
An upper bound on the rest mass of gravitons actually supports my theory, so…
These are my opinions.
S = Entropy
dS = small, nonzero Entropy, corresponding to:
dt = small, nonzero time interval
c = the speed of light (~3.0 x 10^8 m/s)
LIGO: Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory
What is Mass?
Mass is universally attractive and instantaneously interconnected. In an attempt to unify all fields: gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear force, scientists are searching for the particle which mediates the gravitational interaction.
My book will demonstrate the strong and weak nuclear forces fictitious, hopefully indicating new directions for particle physics (ones that can actually benefit mankind). I hope that what follows will cause people to question the results recently shared by LIGO.
What happened at LIGO?
Mass is everywhere interconnected by the physical superposition of massive and potential massive realms: the manifest and unmanifest. Totally manifest would be considered absolute zero: no particle movement means that the positions (of atoms relative to each other) are completely known (since their momenta are zero). Such a system must be unobservable because the act of observing it requires us to measure reflected photons: surely to change its state when it absorbs part of their energy! LIGO is probing systems that are near this unobservable rest state, so it is very hard to detect them.
Why do I question the “gravitons” detected by LIGO? Simple: General Relativity is based on the false premise of Time Reversal Invariance.
See more here.
Time Reversal Invariance is False
There is a notion that physics has embraced for a long time: CPT symmetry. It states that if the charge, parity and time are “reflected” (their sign changed), then the laws of physics should still apply. Unfortunately, although it can appear that way for systems interacting over a very small time interval, TRI is not ever true for observable systems.
This is because for observable systems, dt => dS (all increase in time yields an increase in Entropy) and so t => -t is never accurate, although it may be approximately so when t is very very small.
TRI is Only Approached by Systems for Which dS is Approximately Zero
In fact although the TRI approximation approaches truth in ideal circumstances (as by colliding black holes, which possess no chemical nor nuclear potential differences by definition), TRI is never actually true in the event of an observation (whose duration is by definition nonzero). This is because time is coupled to Entropy in the observable universe.
Under what circumstances could TRI appear to happen, then? We know by the teachings that Entropy always increases with time. In the case of observable changes, we say that dS > 0. Thus the extreme conditions which could precipitate results consistent with TRI can be approached on two fronts: dt is approximately zero and dS is approximately zero. The former is true on the micro-mini level of QM and the latter in systems with no Entropic differentials (i.e.: chemical and nuclear potential).
Unfortunately GR is based on the false premise of TRI and can never truly depict reality. Consider the time evolution of the distant system under observation. The part of it that is observable will obey dS > 0 (by definition). I believe this is what has been observed as a “non zero rest mass”: simply a consequence of observable Entropy bound to increase.
What Was Observed Then?
I postulate that the oscillations observed are localized to the event itself, not indicative of wavelike properties of gravity, but rather of the wavelike properties of the entangled massive system. That is: LIGO was sufficiently sensitive to measure the time-varying configuration of the colliding system: that which increases Entropy (however minutely) with time. This minute change in Entropy represents a change in the information within that system, and since information travels at the speed of light (gravitational observations are excluded by the instantaneous interconnectedness of mass), such vibrations could conceivably be observed (with sensitive enough instrumentation).
While we have previously faced challenges observing systems near the boundary of dS = 0 (such as the colliding black holes), the interferometers and sensitivity of LIGO allow variations in the supermassive system’s intrinsic (information) Entropy to be observed. In other words, throughout the event of their observation on Earth, the configurational Entropy of the black holes changed sufficiently much as to be observable. This is easy to imagine since the observation of the system is accomplished by two interferometers. The time interval between observation of the system at either interferometer is nonzero thus we expect a nonzero change to observable Entropy. This increase allows for physicists to infer a nonzero rest mass to the “mass mediating particle”.
Although the TRI of GR prevents me from embracing it, the degree of instrumental precision achieved by LIGO is still impressive. It pushes the limit what is known in the universe.
However, we must build the universe from that which we know to exist, imposing additional complexity only when absolutely necessary. We can thus say that modern physics is not completely incorrect, but that its approximation of TRI only approaches the true state of instantaneous interconnectedness of mass (via its potential function, known to be entangled in all but unobservable systems). We can also say that the equations of GR make good approximations to such states, but that they are not truly indicative of the structure of spacetime. In fact, GR can only ever be true in systems near the boundary condition of observability (dt or dS very near zero), or nearly classical systems. This is since the shape of classical structures does not change with time. Their movement in space is TRI by definition (even if the colliding black holes aren’t, since they are near the state of dS =0, they very nearly are). This explains GR’s success as a classical theory: the Entropy of an ideal “rigid ball” does not change with time.
I ask those who would like to dismiss what I have said here to do so only after they have shown the extent to which my theory deviates from observational values, and what that implies in terms of computational complexity and Occam’s Razor.