Name: Jack Martinelli
Email address: jmartinelli@geocities.com
URL of home page:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6844/SubSpace.html
Postal address: 327 Chateau La Salle Dr
Phone: 408 998-2128
Affiliations: The Learning Co
How did you hear about PCP? I was looking for material relating to
problem representation.
Please take at least one page to describe your work
and how it might relate to PCP:
In the past, relativity, in spite of the insights it has taught us about
length, has treated rulers as objects external to its model. Quantum
mechanics, however, has focused on the role of the measuring process in
the context of its model and as a result, has been highly successful.
In both models, though, it is assumed that measurements are possible
without consideration of how this is so.
I have developed a theory that builds a unification of ideas into what I
call a "deeply unified field theory", in that rather than trying to
unify the four fundamental forces, it unifies the physical units of
measurement for space, time and mass. Central to this development is
how pure geometry may be used to represent reality.
Philosophically, this unity is achieved, in some sense, through a
conservation of the identity of an abstract and real line. That is, the
idea of a line is conserved with respect to real and abstract space. I
think of this conservation as a semantic alignment, or as a bridge,
between the real and the abstract.
I have made two assumptions. The first is that "existents are". The
second assumption is that each existent may be represented geometrically
as an unbounded, unpreferred and real frame. I call each existent a
"fundamental existent" or "SubSpace particle", since it is a part of the
space we've known throughout history (and because I like Star Trek) and
"particle" because of its discrete nature. These two assumptions are
the two fundamental halves of this model. That is, what is represented
and how it is represented. The goal I have set for myself is to use
these two assumptions to construct the laws of physics.
I use the notion I develop of a line to define a "relativity axiom".
This axiom defines a relative number as a representation for a
measurement of length, from which you can represent the measuring
process as an integral part of the abstractions of a physical model.
MeasuredLength =L= (TARGET)/(RULER)
This statement expresses the number of equivalent reference objects
"contained" in the target in an abstract and very profound way. TARGET
represents a physical length to be measured, and RULER represents a
reference length (abstract units!). No material properties about EITHER
of these two lengths are assumed! You can use this expression to build
other concepts -- static and dynamic for example. Say that a series of
measurements always yielded the same single value. You can use this
pattern to define the prototype of a static pattern with respect to the
RULER. If a series of measurements of one TARGET yielded different
values then you have a dynamic pattern. You can use these two patterns
to classify other measurement patterns into static or dynamic
categories. This seems simple enough, but when you consider the dynamic
case, you can ask which element is really changing, the RULER or the
TARGET!? Because of the relative and "unprefered" nature of TARGET to
RULER, we could easily switch the roles of the two. So, with respect to
one ruler a measured length might be increasing, and with respect to
another ruler it would be shrinking! (I have applied this idea to
estimate Hubble's constant and it is surprisingly close!)
Kant has taught us that we can't really "know" what reality is. The
best we can do is represent it. In my model I present a ruler as a
model of a "real" geometric axis of a frame or SubSpace. From this
representation I relate one axis to another through its scale. That is:
Scale = (RULER1)/(RULER2)
It turns out that the scale of a frame behaves almost exactly like mass.
The difference between scale and mass is that the scale of a frame
accounts for the inertia of "massless" photons (How can a massless
object posses inertia?) as well as massive atoms. But, more
importantly, the SubSpace model emphsizes that the scale of a frame or
mass can be directly related, in a very general way, to coordinates,
frames, force and the geometric curvature of a frame.
The relativity axiom introduces a new way of constructing a coordinate
system that is explicitly related to a measurement. Einstein
constructed the basis function for his space-time continuum as a
differential function to avoid where in the universe the origin of this
continuum might be. As cleaver as this was, it avoided how a pair of
existents defines the end-points of a "real" line and thus a "real" unit
length - the foundation piece of a "real" coordinate system.
Consequently general relativity missed a profound relationship found in
quantum mechanics - the uncertainty principle. The SubSpace model
derives the fundamental piece of this principle: (Planck's
constant)(frequency)=(mass)(c^2). (Although Einstein discovered this
piece of the puzzle he did so as an assertion.) It further shows that a
SubSpace particle manifests a solitonic form whose behavior matches that
of a photon. One of the most exciting features of this model is that
there may be a loophole in Heisenburgs' principle! (see my paper for
details)
This SubSpace coordinate system can be Euclidean with respect to one
frame and non-Euclidean with respect to another. The SubSpace model
shows how, with clear and simple math, this non-Euclidean feature gives
rise to a potential difference. But, there is something of a mystery
here, in that the potential difference I have found, from this pure
geometric approach, resembles, in magnitude, the strong force rather
than a gravitational force. And this is my next hurdle. It seems that
to understand how conventional mass is related to the gravitational
constant, I will have to construct a completely new nuclear and atomic
model :-( . Obviously, I am going to need help. (Or maybe you can do
this?)
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6844/SubSpace.html contains
my paper and links to other pages with applets to demonstrate some of
the simpler concepts of my model.
If you have the time, I would like the opportunity to discuss my theory
with a few open minded math and physics and philosophy experts. I
believe that you will find this idea new and interesting. If you could
look my work over and give me any suggestions, contributions,
corrections, new directions, or observations you might have I would
deeply appreciate it. If you don't have the time, then, if you could,
please forward this letter to someone who you think might be able to
help.
Regards
Jack Martinelli
PS: And please, if there is something that does not make sense, it may
be because I have not explained it well (I do that sometimes. Of course
I could just be wrong.). So please ask questions. It will help me add
clarity where it is needed.
Status: RO
X-Status:
Return-Path: jmartinelli@geocities.com
Received: from geocities.com (mail6.geocities.com [209.1.224.26]) by
bingnet2.cc.binghamton.edu (8.8.7/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA29248 for
<cjoslyn@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu>; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 17:41:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from jack-jr. (201-246-37.ipt.aol.com [152.201.246.37])
by geocities.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA26989
for <cjoslyn@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu>; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 14:30:19 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <348B2596.36D1@geocities.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 14:39:18 -0800
From: Jack Martinelli <jmartinelli@geocities.com>
Reply-To: jmartinelli@geocities.com
Organization: The Learning Co
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cjoslyn@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu
Subject: PRNCYB mailing list
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Name: Jack Martinelli
Email address: jmartinelli@geocities.com
URL of home page:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6844/SubSpace.html
Postal address: 327 Chateau La Salle Dr
Phone: 408 998-2128
Affiliations: The Learning Co
How did you hear about PCP? I was looking for material relating to
problem representation.
Please take at least one page to describe your work
and how it might relate to PCP:
In the past, relativity, in spite of the insights it has taught us about
length, has treated rulers as objects external to its model. Quantum
mechanics, however, has focused on the role of the measuring process in
the context of its model and as a result, has been highly successful.
In both models, though, it is assumed that measurements are possible
without consideration of how this is so.
I have developed a theory that builds a unification of ideas into what I
call a "deeply unified field theory", in that rather than trying to
unify the four fundamental forces, it unifies the physical units of
measurement for space, time and mass. Central to this development is
how pure geometry may be used to represent reality.
Philosophically, this unity is achieved, in some sense, through a
conservation of the identity of an abstract and real line. That is, the
idea of a line is conserved with respect to real and abstract space. I
think of this conservation as a semantic alignment, or as a bridge,
between the real and the abstract.
I have made two assumptions. The first is that "existents are". The
second assumption is that each existent may be represented geometrically
as an unbounded, unpreferred and real frame. I call each existent a
"fundamental existent" or "SubSpace particle", since it is a part of the
space we've known throughout history (and because I like Star Trek) and
"particle" because of its discrete nature. These two assumptions are
the two fundamental halves of this model. That is, what is represented
and how it is represented. The goal I have set for myself is to use
these two assumptions to construct the laws of physics.
I use the notion I develop of a line to define a "relativity axiom".
This axiom defines a relative number as a representation for a
measurement of length, from which you can represent the measuring
process as an integral part of the abstractions of a physical model.
MeasuredLength =L= (TARGET)/(RULER)
This statement expresses the number of equivalent reference objects
"contained" in the target in an abstract and very profound way. TARGET
represents a physical length to be measured, and RULER represents a
reference length (abstract units!). No material properties about EITHER
of these two lengths are assumed! You can use this expression to build
other concepts -- static and dynamic for example. Say that a series of
measurements always yielded the same single value. You can use this
pattern to define the prototype of a static pattern with respect to the
RULER. If a series of measurements of one TARGET yielded different
values then you have a dynamic pattern. You can use these two patterns
to classify other measurement patterns into static or dynamic
categories. This seems simple enough, but when you consider the dynamic
case, you can ask which element is really changing, the RULER or the
TARGET!? Because of the relative and "unprefered" nature of TARGET to
RULER, we could easily switch the roles of the two. So, with respect to
one ruler a measured length might be increasing, and with respect to
another ruler it would be shrinking! (I have applied this idea to
estimate Hubble's constant and it is surprisingly close!)
Kant has taught us that we can't really "know" what reality is. The
best we can do is represent it. In my model I present a ruler as a
model of a "real" geometric axis of a frame or SubSpace. From this
representation I relate one axis to another through its scale. That is:
Scale = (RULER1)/(RULER2)
It turns out that the scale of a frame behaves almost exactly like mass.
The difference between scale and mass is that the scale of a frame
accounts for the inertia of "massless" photons (How can a massless
object posses inertia?) as well as massive atoms. But, more
importantly, the SubSpace model emphsizes that the scale of a frame or
mass can be directly related, in a very general way, to coordinates,
frames, force and the geometric curvature of a frame.
The relativity axiom introduces a new way of constructing a coordinate
system that is explicitly related to a measurement. Einstein
constructed the basis function for his space-time continuum as a
differential function to avoid where in the universe the origin of this
continuum might be. As cleaver as this was, it avoided how a pair of
existents defines the end-points of a "real" line and thus a "real" unit
length - the foundation piece of a "real" coordinate system.
Consequently general relativity missed a profound relationship found in
quantum mechanics - the uncertainty principle. The SubSpace model
derives the fundamental piece of this principle: (Planck's
constant)(frequency)=(mass)(c^2). (Although Einstein discovered this
piece of the puzzle he did so as an assertion.) It further shows that a
SubSpace particle manifests a solitonic form whose behavior matches that
of a photon. One of the most exciting features of this model is that
there may be a loophole in Heisenburgs' principle! (see my paper for
details)
This SubSpace coordinate system can be Euclidean with respect to one
frame and non-Euclidean with respect to another. The SubSpace model
shows how, with clear and simple math, this non-Euclidean feature gives
rise to a potential difference. But, there is something of a mystery
here, in that the potential difference I have found, from this pure
geometric approach, resembles, in magnitude, the strong force rather
than a gravitational force. And this is my next hurdle. It seems that
to understand how conventional mass is related to the gravitational
constant, I will have to construct a completely new nuclear and atomic
model :-( . Obviously, I am going to need help. (Or maybe you can do
this?)
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6844/SubSpace.html contains
my paper and links to other pages with applets to demonstrate some of
the simpler concepts of my model.
If you have the time, I would like the opportunity to discuss my theory
with a few open minded math and physics and philosophy experts. I
believe that you will find this idea new and interesting. If you could
look my work over and give me any suggestions, contributions,
corrections, new directions, or observations you might have I would
deeply appreciate it. If you don't have the time, then, if you could,
please forward this letter to someone who you think might be able to
help.
Regards
Jack Martinelli
PS: And please, if there is something that does not make sense, it may
be because I have not explained it well (I do that sometimes. Of course
I could just be wrong.). So please ask questions. It will help me add
clarity where it is needed.