GPRA Project: Realitivistic Relativity 2.0
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | GPRA Project: Realitivistic Relativity 2.0 |
| Read in full | Link to paper |
| Author(s) | Robert L DeMelo |
| Keywords | Physics, Quantum, Cosmology, Unification, Theory |
| Published | 2010 |
| Journal | Proceedings of the NPA |
| Volume | 7 |
| No. of pages | 15 |
| Pages | 116-130 |
Read the full paper here
Abstract
This work introduces an alternative theoretical framework to Einstein's SRT. It is a velocity dependent relativity theory similar in respect to SRT with regards to length contraction, but significantly different in all other aspects. It includes size scaling dependent on velocity and a Universal static frame of reference. It details that star and atomic systems are the same thing at two different points on the velocity spectrum, where star systems exist at low velocities and atomic systems exist at high velocities near and at the speed of light, and that our Solar System is a celestial Beryllium atom. The mathematical observations detailed in this work are beyond doubt extremely interesting. It mathematically derives the elementary charge 1.6022x10-19 C and also derives Avogadro's constant 6.022x10-23. The observations show that mass and charge are the same thing at two different points on the velocity spectrum, that gas-giant planets in the outer system have a direct scale relationship to electrons, that rock planets in the inner system are directly related to neutrons, that the star itself is related to protons and that asteroids are related to photons. This radical, simple and highly intuitive work maps celestial objects to their quantum counter-parts mathematically with extraordinary accuracy.
Overview
Robert L. DeMelo, a Toronto engineer, presented this at the 2010 NPA meeting in Long Beach as the second version of a scaling theory he had been developing since 2007 under the project name GPRA ("General Principles of Reality Alpha"). The animating idea is Bohr's planetary analogy for the atom, taken not as a pedagogical picture but as a literal identity: a star system and an atom are, DeMelo argues, the same object at two points on a velocity spectrum. Because velocity shrinks bodies, an accelerated solar system becomes an atom. Our own system, with four gas giants, is therefore a celestial beryllium atom.
The framework departs from special relativity on almost every point except length contraction. It restores a universal static frame of reference, argued for on the grounds that larger structures change more slowly and an infinitely large structure would not move at all. It reverses time dilation: DeMelo holds that time runs faster for fast-moving bodies, since electrons orbit far more often per second than gas giants do. It makes mass decrease rather than increase with speed, allows velocities well above c, and asserts that "kilogram = coulomb" — that mass and charge are one quantity seen at two space-time densities, and hence that gravitational and electric force are the same force.
The framework
Space-time density
DeMelo takes space to be infinitely homogeneous and infinitely divisible, and a point in space to be a static object through which moving matter passes. The faster a body moves, the more space passes through it, and so the higher the "space-time density" it inhabits. He then postulates that the ratio of matter density to space-time density is a natural constant. To hold that ratio fixed as space-time density rises with velocity, matter density must rise too; since the body has a fixed number of atoms, it must shrink. Unlike Lorentz contraction, the shrinkage acts equally on length, width and depth.
The Reality Scale Constant
The bridge between scales is a single number S, obtained by dividing the radius of the Solar System — taken out to the Kuiper belt and scattered disc, 77.5 AU or 1.15938×1013 m — by the measured radius of the beryllium atom, 105 pm. This gives S ≈ 1.1025×1023, which DeMelo observes equals coe, the dimensionless numerical value of the speed of light raised to Euler's number. He is explicit that co is "the numerical value of the speed of light with no units", and that the units in his scaling equation "make little sense unitarily", so a convention is adopted to strip them.
Three transforms follow: lengths divide by S; densities multiply by S; and combining them, mass transforms as mq = mo/S2. Applied to Jupiter (1.898×1027 kg) this yields 1.56×10−19, close to the elementary charge 1.6×10−19 C — the result DeMelo calls the driving force behind the whole programme.
The square root of c
A second numerical coincidence carries much of the paper. Asteroid-belt objects orbit at roughly 17315 m s−1, and 17314.5159 is the square root of 299792458, the numerical value of c in SI units. DeMelo takes this as the "celestial speed of light" cs, with the quantum speed of light being cq = c2 = 9.0×1016 m s−1, at which a signal would reach Alpha Centauri in 0.46 s. Each object's quantum-scale velocity is then its celestial orbital velocity expressed as a fraction of 17315 m s−1. He also proposes a gravitational "natural initial velocity" v = √(GM/d), later refined to √(GMm/d), which he notes returns the asteroid-belt figure for the Sun.
The mapping
Kinetic energies (linear plus rotational) give a net velocity for each body, from which the mass transform yields a quantum charge. Saturn comes out almost exactly at the electron charge; Jupiter at 75.3% of it. Venus and Mars share a value of 8.73×10−24 C, taken as the neutron; Earth's value is 2.95 times that, so Earth is declared to be three neutrons, giving the system five — the neutron count of stable beryllium-9. A quarter of the Sun's mass reaches the proton charge at 2.77c. Asteroids, via E = hf equated to ½m'c2, map to photons across the range 1.47×10−50 to 1.47×10−26 C. A further manipulation of the ratio of Coulomb to gravitational force produces the number 5.9810×1023, which DeMelo notes is 99.32% of Avogadro's constant.
Assessment
What is attractive here is the ambition and the candour of the method statement. DeMelo sets out his project rules openly — start from the obvious, keep it simple, question everything, version the model and revise it — and he does not conceal where the numbers fail. He supplies his full tables so a reader can check the arithmetic, and he flags problems himself, including the neutron's neutral charge, which his mass-charge identity cannot accommodate. The underlying intuition, that structure may repeat across scales, is not in itself unreasonable; it has a respectable lineage from Fournier d'Albe and Nottale's scale relativity, and the paper's citation of Mandelbrot shows DeMelo knows the territory.
The framework nevertheless rests on an operation that cannot bear weight. Both of its foundational constants are obtained by stripping units from a dimensional quantity and then performing an arithmetic operation on the bare number. The speed of light is 299792458 m s−1 only because the metre and second are what they are; √c has dimensions of m1/2 s−1/2, not m s−1, and 17314.5159 is not a velocity. Likewise coe raises a dimensioned magnitude to a transcendental power. DeMelo acknowledges the difficulty — the units "make little sense unitarily" — and resolves it by convention rather than by physics. The consequence is decisive: expressed in feet and hours, or in natural units where c = 1, every coincidence in the paper evaporates. A relation that holds only in SI is a fact about the 1793 definition of the metre and the 1967 definition of the second, not about nature. The same objection applies to setting kilograms equal to coulombs, which the paper treats as an identity rather than a proportionality with a conversion constant.
The mapping's accuracy is also weaker than the abstract's "extraordinary accuracy" claims. Table 16.2 lists computed quantum charges beside the values expected: Uranus gives 7.90×10−19 C where 1.60×10−19 is wanted, a factor of five; Neptune gives 2.55×10−18, a factor of sixteen; Mercury gives 1.08×10−25 against 8.73×10−24, a factor of eighty. These are not close calls, and rather than counting against the mapping they are absorbed into it — Uranus and Neptune are reassigned as valence electrons because 4.93 and 15.9 are "almost whole numbers", with 15.9 further identified as the atomic mass of oxygen and taken to hint at a molecular bond to an oxygen star system. A scheme that can rescue a sixteenfold discrepancy by reinterpretation cannot be tested by its successes. The two headline results are similarly softer than stated: the abstract says the elementary charge is derived, but equation (12.4) actually yields 1.56×10−19, 2.6% low, and the exact figure 1.6022×10−19 C appears in the tables only as the target that velocities were adjusted to reach. The Avogadro result, 5.9810×1023, comes from an exponent of 1.1812 that is itself fitted, and misses by 0.68%.
There are internal inconsistencies in the paper's own numbers. Table 15.1 lists Jupiter's mass as 1.90×1026 kg, while section 12.4 uses the correct 1.898×1027 kg and Table 16.1 lists 1.90×1027 kg — an order of magnitude adrift in the table that carries the electron identification. Earth's designation as "three neutrons" is arrived at only after the count is needed to make beryllium-9, and the Sun is divided into quarters for the same reason.
The conflicts with measurement are direct rather than interpretive. Reversing time dilation contradicts the extended laboratory lifetime of cosmic-ray muons, first measured by Rossi and Hall in 1941, and the offset that GPS satellite clocks require, which combines a velocity term slowing the clock by about 7 microseconds a day with a gravitational term speeding it by about 45; the Hafele-Keating flying-clock experiment of 1971 gives the same sign. Assigning nucleons speeds of 1.5c to 2.8c has no support from deep inelastic scattering, where nucleon constituents are measured at sub-luminal momenta, and would render the observed stability of nuclear binding energies inexplicable. Identifying protons with quarter-solar masses is not reconcilable with the measured proton mass and radius, nor with the fact that atoms of the same element are identical while star systems demonstrably are not. And the electron is measured to be structureless below about 10−18 m, which a scaled gas giant with internal composition would not be.
Finally, the sources are almost entirely textbooks, Schaum's outlines and popular works by Hawking, rather than the primary literature the framework claims to overturn; no measurement in the paper is drawn from a research publication. The result is a system of numerical resemblances presented as a physical theory, with no prediction offered that could distinguish it from coincidence.