|
Author
|
Topic: Spacetime "Spin-Effect" and Zero Inertia
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 23. November 2002 18:58
Hello, I am still working on the "theory" of inertia-gravity and the conservation of energy, and spacetime.
A diffeomorphism is basically a map between manifolds with the term "manifold" a topological space which is locally Euclidean. An infinitely differentiable bijection also with a differentiable inverse.
An "inverse expansion" would be material and radiative contraction. A type of mathematical "inverse" of spatial expansion.
I figure that both expansion AND inverse expansion ARE logically valid explanations!
Remember the "T-Duality" of string theory? A type of isomorphism.
R<------>[1/R]
Really T-Duality says:
R<------->[{L_st}^2]/R
The physics for a circle of radius R is the same for a circle of radius 1/R .
So a type of diagram for the "self organizing"{self creating}, self containing universe, would be:
{<-{->{U}<-}->}
Infinity and continuity would be explained as quantum wavefunction "potential". Discrete finite particles would be explained as quantum wavefunction "actualization".
How can the "relativistic effects" be described by quantum wavefunctions, when the wavefunctions describe the position and momentum of particles in a backround OF space?
In quantizing spacetime geometry, we won't get
wavefunctions based on a background space. The space of wavefunctions can be thought of the space of square-integrable wavefunctions over
classical configuration space. In ordinary quantum mechanics, configuration space is space itself {i.e.,to describe the configuration of a particle, location in space is specified}. In
general relativity, there is a more general kind of configuration space: taken to be the space of 3-metrics {"superspace", not to be confused with supersymmetric space} in the geometrodynamics formulation,{or the space of connections of an
appropriate gauge group)in the Ashtekar/loop formulation. So the wavefunctions will be functions over these abstract spaces, not space
itself-- the wavefunction _defines_ "space itself".
The *process* is the "function of functions".
Time is a function OF time. With flat sheets, foliations of space, or equatorial planes, the light cone cross section corresponding to a circle would be a "rotated" light cone near a massive object. Using abstract generalizations of
course!
The two light cones form a relationship, describing degrees of rotation and circular-elliptic cross sections. It should be possible to derive a set of equations from these
rotational perspective effects!
Non-Euclidean geometry has great explanatory power, yet there must be a type of "dynamics" involved, possibly related to a type of
configuration space or varying density gradients. Static geometry cannot be the whole, complete explanation. Mathematician Roger Penrose demonstrated how many of the properties of
three dimensional space can be created out of networks of spinors, the simplest possible "quantum mechanical objects". These spinors are used to define the two possible values of an electron's spin.
He then generalized the spinor into a mathematical quantity called a twistor. The mathematics of complex numbers is used, which makes twistors hard to visualize. Geometrically, the notion of a point becomes more complicated, and secondary, defined by a conjunction of
many individual twistors. A daunting approach mathematically.
Theoretically speaking, does the "absolute spacetime metric" exist?...Yes. Relativity does not prove that spacetime geometry is in
all respects relative. "All-everything is relative" cannot be true. The overall spacetime structure must be stable and symmetric. The
stability and symmetry are ultimately related to the existence of an absolute metric. Absolute relativity. Function and inverse function
generate an axis-juxtaposition of symmetry, which can be hypothesized as an interactive temporally stratified display screen upon which the
universe recursively shows itself a movie OF itself, as a process. The Eigenfunction diffeomorphism. Thus we realize that the universe is a self referential "quantum computer". All aspects of reality are intrinsic TO reality.
Time cannot merely be added on to a theory via an assumption as in the ADM formalism, whith Lorentzian manifolds, diffeomorhic to R x S with
manifold S reresenting "space" and "t" an element of R representing time...
phi: M---> R x S
We need not invoke the "lumeniferous aether". The absolute metric must be a type of "meta-relation", as explained above.
The laws of physics would be distributed over space-time. Thus the equivalence principle results from the law: conservation of
momentum-energy. This could also be interpreted as a type of Lenz' law for all mass-energy interacting with "space-time". The laws of physics
are then a subset of mathematics.
Dr. Georg Cantor proved that a one dimensional line of length "s" has the same number of points as the 2-D plane with sides "s". In fact,
the number of points on the line would be the same as 3-D, 4-D, ... n-D and higher dimensional space. Very interesting.
The gravitational field, described by the metric of spacetime g_uv , is generated by the stress-energy tensor T^uv of matter. Various field
equations relating g_uv to T^uv have been proposed. The most succsessful have been the Einstein field equations which are of
course, the foundation of general relativity.
G_uv == R_uv - 1/2 g_uv R = 8pi T_uv
where R_uv and R are the Ricci tensor and scalar curvature derived from the metric g_uv , and G_uv is the Einstein tensor. The equations
are non-linear, since the left hand side is not a linear function of the metric.
When the gravitational field is weak, the geometry of spacetime is nearly flat and the equation is: g_uv = n_uv + h_uv
where all h_uv are << 1.
This linearized theory is very interesting.
But really, what is needed is a quantum theory of gravity-spacetime.
Successive sheets of space, sequential hypersurfaces parameterized by time, where time is not added on as an assumption.
Since the geometry of the universe can be explained as a type of language with grammatical structure, and the structure of that
language is relational, space has no existence outside the relationships between things in the universe. Therefore the relation is self referential and recursive.
As Dr. Lee Smolin says: "There is nothing outside the universe". A closed circuit.
I am reading the book "A Journey Into Gravity and Spacetime" by John Archibald Wheeler.
OK, "A directed or 'oriented' line - a one dimensional 'manifold' - has for its boundary the starting point and the terminal point, both zero
dimensional." A closed circuit.
The starting point is "negative".
The end point is "positive".
-A + A = 0.
-A------0------A
The starting point is also the ending point.
--------->
<---------
"The zero dimensional boundary of a one dimensional boundary of a two
dimensional region is zero".
A true statement.
"The one dimensional boundary of the two dimensional boundary of a
three dimensional region is zero".
A true statement.
Space is three dimensional. A cube or tetrahedron is three dimensional.
Also symmetrical
Energy and momentum are conserved.
If a movie is projected onto a "movie screen", the characters in the film will appear to move "relative" TO the other objects in the
film... and the objects in the film could be explained as moving relative to the characters...
Yet, the screen is a type of fixed reference frame. The "absolute".
A mathematical function has an opposite and an inverse...
A function{universe-time-process} and the inverse OF the function form an axis{n-dimensional manifold} of symmetry.
The axis of symmetry is a fixed reference frame GENERATED by the relation and inverse relation.
Thus by generating a field with 180 degree reverse spin properties in relation to the surrounding spin-property of spacetime, A
"zero-inertia" effect can be produced. Zero resistance TO acceleration up to the limiting velocity "c" when the theory of "special
relativity" forbids faster than light travel.
Russell E. Rierson
IP: Logged
|
|
Jacob Aliet
Member
Member # 578
|
posted 10. December 2002 12:04
Russel,
Excellent Post. However, I do not get the purpose of your post. Is there a theory you are propounding? Because it seems to me that you are simply sharing what you know.
Since you have stated that you are working on the "theory of inertia gravity". What are your thoughts on Le Sage's "Push(ing) Gravity"? vis a vis Gravity in GR terms - which is often explained via the misleading rubber-sheet analogy (because it violates the causality principle).
I think you could also set the ball rolling by explaining what inertia gravity is and that could of course obviate its relation to isomorphism, diffeomorphism etc.
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 22. December 2002 19:53
quote:
Russel,
Excellent Post. However, I do not get the purpose of your post. Is there a theory you are propounding? Because it seems to me that you are simply sharing what you know.
Since you have stated that you are working on the "theory of inertia gravity". What are your thoughts on Le Sage's "Push(ing) Gravity"? vis a vis Gravity in GR terms - which is often explained via the misleading rubber-sheet analogy (because it violates the causality principle).
I think you could also set the ball rolling by explaining what inertia gravity is and that could of course obviate its relation to isomorphism, diffeomorphism etc.
I will research "Le Sage". Thanks.
Non-Euclidean geometry of GR is generated by a "temporal flux". Time is a curve.
.........||||||||||||
||||||||||||{mass}--------------->time
.........||||||||||||
............space
Time is orthogonal to space.
Russ
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic