A site on the future of psychology

About

This blog describes a new unified theoretical system for psychology developed in part because the field is so fragmented and conceptually chaotic. It was developed by Dr. Gregg Henriques and has been laid out in numerous publications, most recently A New Unified Theory of Psychology. Dr. Henriques Directs the Clinical-School Doctoral Program at James Madison University. Students in that program are being taught how to see the field through the unified theory, research its foundational propositions, and utilize it in their professional work.

If you enjoy the content of this blog or have interest in the theory, please feel free to contact Gregg at henriqgx@jmu.edu.

Advertisements

Comments on: "About" (6)

  1. The trumpet logo is fascinating. I have the same belief that there is a direction to the changes the universe is undergoing. I would only put an extra trumpet at the start labelled “energy” and rename the fifth trumpet “Future?”

  2. coloradojak said:

    For a unified theory to be found, either waves must be reduced to particles, or particles must be reduced to waves. I support the latter. If light is looked upon as a dual-wave phenomena, it might explain the undulations known as photons. It might also explain dark energy. If two waves have the same frequency but are “out of phase” by 180 degrees, they will cancel each other out due to destructive interference. However, with a slight difference in frequency, the two waves go through all forms of constructive and destructive interference resulting in “beat” waves which could be construed as photons. The “peaks” of photos would be constructive interference while the disappearance in between would be destructive interference.

    A dual wave explanation might also help explain electron/positron annihilation. Present research indicates that the two particles annihilate but produce to high frequency gamma ray photons and one gluon. The 1st law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy law, demands that the phenomena of the result be accounted for in the constituents of the interaction. Is an electron a gamma ray tied up with a gluon? And is a positron a gamma ray tied up with a gluon? Does this mean we have “half gluons”? In any case, the difference in particles could be easier to explain with gamma rays being dual waves Depending upon the configuration, such as two “left spiral” waves or two “right spiral” waves, it might explain the “left-handedness” of electrons that Feynman pointed out. With the annihilation, perhaps the waves reconfigured into a preferred orientation such as one left spiral and one right spiral in each gamma ray. The balancing would eliminate the “left handedness” of the electron. If positrons are “right handed”, this would tend to confirm a dual wave hypothesis.

    • jasonbessey said:

      —“For a unified theory to be found, either waves must be reduced to particles, or particles must be reduced to waves.”—

      Why? Why couldn’t both waves AND particles be reduced to something even more fundamental, (such as “strings”, for example)?

      Furthermore, it is my understanding that whether light is a wave or a particle is contingent upon “how one looks at it”, no?

  3. coloradojak said:

    To continue the dual wave hypothesis, two “left handed” waves might produce the “negative charge” on an electron while two “right handed” waves might produce the positive charge of the positron. With the annihilation and reconfiguration, the negative and positive charges disappear since each gamma ray would have one right handed and one left handed wave in a balanced configuration.

    The other question becomes, is the gluon a catalyst for the annihilation? Or was a “half gluon” inherent in both the positron and electron? Or was the appearance of a gluon more like skid marks on the highway at the site of an accident?

  4. coloradojak said:

    Regarding jasonbessey’s comment, your point is well taken and is at the crux of the issue. First, we have no true way of “looking at a photon”; observing a photon is even more prone to uncertainty than Heisenberg’s principle. But part of the definition must consider all facets of light, not just isolating Thomas Young’s double-slit experiment circa 1803. A complete definition must consider, not only Young’s experiment, but electron/positron annihilation, polarized light (which my approach is sadly lacking at this point), a magnetic component, and gravitational lensing. Even that may be an incomplete survey of known properties.

    For the dual wave hypothesis, it was primarily an attempt to explain “dark energy”. The hypothesis explains our inability to detect “dark energy” due to the two waves of energy (EMR) cancelling each other via destructive wave interference. The first assumption is that if a “blip” or a “beat wave” of some sort (photon) does not exist, our equipment cannot detect it. Thus, complete destructive interference renders the EMR undetectable.

    The next assumption is that the universe is permeated by an “ocean of dark energy”, and I’m leaning strongly toward gluons being an integral part of this ocean. If particle annihilation dumps out a gluon, then the 1st law of thermodynamics requires an accounting of where it came from. Was the gluon part of the two particles? Does that mean that each particle had half of a gluon? If only one had it, which one? (Both seemed to be of equal value.) Tracing back to the original creation of the particles, where did the gluon come from? Did the reaction need to await the arrival of a gluon or are gluons ubiquitous in the universe? In fact, are the gluons and “dark energy” the same? Or is the “ocean of dark matter” an ocean of gluons? I am proposing that the universe is an ocean of gluons – the infamous and maligned aether. Dark matter and/or dark energy are the aether permeating our universe in its entirety.

    Further, with an ocean of gluons, the gluons might only attach to each other, not to “particles”. These gluons might also be inseparable from each other and form a “stretchy net”. Particles getting caught in this “net” would be like billiard balls placed into a nylon mesh net. The balls would collect together, not because they stick to each other, but because the stretch of the netting forces them together. With particles as the billiard balls in a gluon netting, they, too, would collect, the more particles, the deeper the “pit” in the netting. Thus, galaxies would be a deep pit in the curvature of space, in the gluon netting.

    If this is true, then I believe gravity can be explained as the slope of stretching of the gluon fabric. A gentle slope is considered “gravity”. A steeper slope is called the “weak force”. The deepest slope is a deep pit of highly stretched gluons which do not break but tightly clutch the particles they surround. This is the “strong force”.

    If these expressions are true, then I believe that gravitons and the Higgs-Boson can be eliminated. The tension of the gluon net would perform the function of both of those “particles” which have never been found. The Higgs-Boson has been postulated as “stretchy” being almost infinitesimally small at times and also capable of being as big as all outdoors. The gluon fabric is ubiquitous and functions at the smallest measurements as well as on an astronomical scale. Thus, the Higgs-Boson will never be found unless it is equated to the gluon. Similarly, the graviton, another hypothesized and elusive particle, can be shed from our universe. Once again, the gluon fabric does the work of the graviton mediating not only gravity but the weak force and the strong force as well.

    For the electromagnetic forces (positive and negative attraction), I rely upon the dual wave approach. If the two waves are not of the same frequency, then a “beat wave ensues” with one wave overtaking the other wave creating peaks of constructive interference followed by valleys of destructive interference, hallmarks of the “beat” wave. Because there is the approaching (crescendo) and then ebbing (decrescendo) of the “peak and valley” aspect of the waves, the approach or crescendo may be the root of repulsion while the decrescendo may be the root of the attraction. Alternatively, the reverse may be the true phenomena.

    The final assumption is that the two waves have a core pulling the waves back to a central attractor. This would be the “clothes washer” factor. Just as an unbalanced clothes washer begins to “thump” while spinning, the bulging of an unbalanced beat wave may be the “thump, thump, thump”. And just as the washer has a central spindle pulling back against the unbalanced state, the unbalanced photon would also be coaxed back to a central core. Thus, “dark energy” would be “balanced” – equal frequency and 180 degrees out of phase.

    All of this brings the discussion back to the interesting possibility that gluons are also “strings” as jasonbessey notes. To that end, if “time” is 3-dimensional on the physical plane as well as 3-dimensional on a mental plane (as most sci-fi movies assume), and perhaps 3-dimensional on a spiritual plane, then 9 dimensions for strings might be accounted for. If a 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional root is added, I’m up to 11 dimensions. But the “string” aspect of this hypothesis needs LOTS of work for which I am ill-prepared at the moment.

  5. coloradojak said:

    Oops .. the 9 + 1 + 2 does not add up to 11. However, the root dimensions are an “either/or” in my mind – thus, 10 or 11. If both roots exist, then we are at 12 dimensions. But all of this is very sketchy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: