|
Author
|
Topic: Is 'Matter' Contracting As Space Expands?
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 01. November 2003 03:05
quote:
Gedankin:
I do not see the consequences you list as being necessary. (Care to elaborate?) Specifically, there can be meaningful (even in useful fiction) spatial measurement in virtually each and every reference frame. That they differ (but can be transformed one to another) does not seem to provide harm with regard to EPR. Each physical (c>v) reference frame in the SR model would see the EPR experiment in somewhat similar manner. No "absolute", but a great deal of commonality.
Instantaneous communication between two objects, separated by a distance interval, is equivalent to zero separation[zero boundary] between the two objects.
According to the book "Gravitation", chapter 15, geometry of spacetime gives instructions to matter telling matter to follow the straightest path, which is a geodesic. Matter in turn, tells spacetime geometry how to curve in such a way, as to gaurantee the conservation of momentum and energy. The Einstein tensor[geometric feature-description] is also conserved in this relationship between matter and the spacetime geometry. Eli Cartan's "boundary of a boundary equals zero."
Einstein's equation basically says
Einstein Tensor [G] = Stress-Energy Tensor [T]
[spacetime geometry] determines [matter-energy's path] = geodesic.
[Matter-energy] determines [spacetime geometry] = non-Euclidean geometry.
.
Conservation of momentum energy is explained as an automatic consequence of the zero boundary of a boundary. Where conservation of energy-momentum means no creation or destruction of energy momentum in a 4D region of spacetime [4D cube] The integral of "creation events" i.e. the integral of
d*T for energy momentum, over the 4D region is required to be zero, and gives the conservation of momentum energy. The mathematical machinery for identically meeting the conservation laws is the boundary of a boundary equals zero.
[spacetime tells mass]<===[geodesic path for particle]===>[mass tells spacetime]
An object following a geodesic has no unbalanced forces acting on it. Its energy-momentum is a constant. In order for the object to deviate from the geodesic, it must be accelerated. Energy must be expended, for example, its rocket boosters could fire, or an outside force like a meteor impact .
Is mass "m", a form of condensed space-time?
The mass-energy equivalence is given by the equation
E = m*c^2
Really, the equation is:
E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4
For a photon, the rest mass is zero, the equation reduces to:
E^2 = p^2 c^2
Since p is the momentum of a photon of light, the equation becomes:
E/p = c
Light is also a wave with a frequency (f) of oscillation and its energy is also given by the equation:
E = h*f = p*c
wavelength, Lambda = c/f
E/f = h = p*Lamda
Waves are ripples in a basic medium. Einstein explains that the ether is unecessary as a medium, so the ripples are vibrations of spacetime itself, if, mass-energy is a form of condensed space-time.
As the ripples intersect with each other, it becomes a domino effect with the ripples coninually increasing in density. Very similar to taking a penny and doubling it as an iterative sequence.
2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ... 2^n
Since the ripples are increasing in density they are "compressed" . As spacetime becomes compressed, matter is re-configured as a balancing effect, so the force of gravity and accelerations are perceived as they presently are.
[<->[<->[<->[U]<->]<->]<->]
The increasing spacetime density must be background independent.
Actually, spacetime does not really need to be "sliced up" in that it can proceed in discrete steps, yet, still be continuous.
[density 1]--->[density 2]--->[density 3]---> ... --->[density n]
h represents Planck's constant
G is Newton's universal gravitational constant.
c is the speed of light in vacuum.
S = distance scale
T = time scale.
p is momentum
Planck length = sqrt[hG/c^3] = constant ratio
Planck time = sqrt[hG/c^5] = constant ratio
[Planck length]/[Planck time] = c = [S/T]_n = [S/T]_n+k
Discrete quanta = hf
Continuous wavelength = h/p
Since we are continuing to discover how symmetry is violated in the universe, it should be possible to devise an experiment to determine how the spacetime expansion vs. matter contraction symmetry, is violated. Then it should be possible to prove, or disprove Eddington's idea.
A quote from the book "The Expanding Universe" by Sir Arthur Eddington:
quote:
All change is relative. The universe is expanding relatively to our common standards; our common standards are shrinking relatively to the size of the universe. The theory of the "expanding universe" might also be called the theory of the "shrinking atom" .
Quantum mechanics leads us to the realization that all matter-energy can be explained in terms of "waves". In a confined region(i.e. a closed universe or a black hole) the waves exists as STANDING WAVES In a closed system, the entropy never decreases.
The analogy with black holes is an interesting one but if there is nothing outside the universe, then it cannot be radiating energy outside itself as black holes are explained to be. So the amount of information i.e. "quantum states" in the universe is increasing. We see it as entropy, but to an information processor with huge computational capabilities, it is compressible information.
Quantum field theory calculations where imaginary time is periodic, with period 1/T are equivalent to statistical mechanics calculations where the temperature is T. The periodic waveforms that are opposed yet "in phase" would be at standing wave resonance, giving the action.
Periodicity is a symmetry. Rotate into the complex plane and we have
real numbers on the horizonal axis and imaginary numbers on the
vertical axis. So a periodic function could exist with periodicity
along both the imaginary AND the real axis. Such functions would have
amazing symmetries. Functions that remain unchanged, when the complex
variable "z" is changed.
f(z)---->f(az+b/cz+d)
Where the elements a,b,c,d, are arranged as a matrix, forming an
algebraic group. An infinite number of possible variations that
commute with each other as the function f, is invariant under group
transformations. These functions are known as "automorphic forms".
Topologically speaking, the wormhole transformations must be
invariant with regards to time travel. In other words, by traveling
backwards in time, we "complete" the future, and no paradoxes are
created.
So when spacetime tears and a wormhole is created, it must obey
certain transformative rules, which probably appear to be
discontinuities from a "3-D" perspective, but really, these
transformations are continuous!
So the number of holes[genus] on the surface of space, determine
whether there exist an infinite, or finite, number of solutions to
the universal equations?
Multiverse, or one Universe?
Strong Anthropic Principle or Weak Anthropic Principle?
The information density of space increases. This is a relation and its inverse.
For example, unity is a constant, representable by:
[1 = c ] = [1/2 + 1/2] = [1/4 + 3/4] = [1/5 + 4/5] = [1/6 + 5/6]
The left fraction represents [energy/momentum] and the right fraction represents compressed [space/time] density, where space means "distance interval" , a relative measurement.
[E/p]<--->[S/T]
[1/R]<--->[R]
The physics for a circle of radius R, is the same for a circle of radius 1/R
E/p = S/T = c
[Space/time] and [energy/momentum] are two different forms of the same invariant quantity [c].
[E/p]_n = [E/p]_n+1 = [S/T]_n = [S/T]_n+1
Yes, c+c = c
[c + c]/[1 + c^2/c^2] = c
So E/p + S/t = 2c/2 = c
S/T = E/p = S/T + E/p = c
We live in a nonlinear universe. Einstein's equations don't lie
c+c = c
aleph_0 + aleph_0 = aleph_0
0 + 0 = 0
Gravity exists because the information density of space-time is increasing. This creates a "pressure force" where processed space, compresses mass-energy, and mass-energy reacts by compressing space. The process is "time", which becomes dilated due to the increased information density of massive objects.
mass energy = information
space = self similar relation
time = process = change
So space compresses matter-energy and matter-energy gives an equal and opposite reaction.
Space-time tells matter how to move and matter tells space-time how to curve.
[mass tells spacetime ]<===[geodesic]===>[ space-time tells mass]
[ 01. November 2003, 03:15: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 01. November 2003 17:13
Russell, of course we live in a universe that is non-linear in many respects. How does your previous post address my original question about your statement, as follows?
quote:
We then realize that an absolute spatial separation cannot exist, therefore, the EPR paradox cannot actually exist.
I see nothing in the above that demonstrates that "therefore, the EPR paradox cannot actually exist."
Now of course one may be able to argue from evidence that the EPR experiment taken as "paradox" is some sort of wrongful view. What it showed is that Einstein's original formulation of "hidden varialbes" (and I do mean his formulation and not all possible formulations of anything that might be "hidden") would not be consistent if we observed certain entanglement effects. And in fact we do (in recent experiments most clearly) seem to observe these sorts of entanglement.
But I don't see how the lack of an "absolute" reference frame has anything to do with that. That one reference frame can be translated to another seems even to be supported in your post above (is it not?) If one view can be translated to another, how is the entanglement issue resolved differently?
Are you taking a "many worlds" posture--and claiming a relationship? (That would be interesting, in light of some previous discussions.)
[ 01. November 2003, 17:21: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 01. November 2003 17:23
quote:
Gedankin:
I see nothing in the above that demonstrates that "therefore, the EPR paradox cannot actually exist."
Instantaneous communication between two objects, separated by a distance interval, is equivalent to zero separation[zero boundary] between the two objects.
According to the book "Gravitation", chapter 15, geometry of spacetime gives instructions to matter telling matter to follow the straightest path, which is a geodesic. Matter in turn, tells spacetime geometry how to curve in such a way, as to gaurantee the conservation of momentum and energy. The Einstein tensor[geometric feature-description] is also conserved in this relationship between matter and the spacetime geometry. Eli Cartan's "boundary of a boundary equals zero."
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 01. November 2003 21:12
Russell, you read too much into anthropic language written for a popular audience.
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 01. November 2003 21:24
quote:
Gedankin:
Russell, you read too much into anthropic language written for a popular audience.
Thanks for the help Gedankin. I was not aware that textbooks on advanced topics were meant for a popular audience.
Yes, the goal is to completely eliminate the semantics.
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 02. November 2003 01:28
Russell, I am mistaken about "popular" nature of the book you quote.
But that does not change the anthropomorphic language, only that it was intended for a real student audience, rather than a less well studied audience. All physics study knows is what the relationships are, the study of physics cannot have knowledge that leads to higher level interpretations like in terms like "instructs". These are metaphors.
And on EPR, after some reflection, I think you are correct at least in part. But the statement is that there really is no "EPR paradox". I agree that there is really no "paradox". Any presentation showing that the expansion of effects spreading out at speed of light is in part dealing with the notions in "EPR".
The original statement, which I will quote again, was
quote:
We then realize that an absolute spatial separation cannot exist, therefore, the EPR paradox cannot actually exist.
And in the later reply you mentioned
quote:
Instantaneous communication between two objects, separated by a distance interval, is equivalent to zero separation[zero boundary] between the two objects.
But where have one come up with “instantaneous communication”? The communication’s instantaneity is an illusion. Now one does have the question of multiple universes, etc., of the basics of QM interpretation, and the resolution of QM issues relating to such distances is of interest. But the photon still had to travel at the speed of light to its destination—there was still no “instantaneous communication”. One cannot communicate instantaneously as with an EPR “radio” or the like that sends a message faster than light.
As far as I can tell, there seems to be general agreement that the whole notion of a “paradox” was an erroneous logical argument in the first place. So presenting a physics theory that shows relativity and QM does not “resolve” the “paradox”—as there was never a real “paradox” in the first place. Most specifically, that we “realize that an absolute spatial separation cannot exist” (whether correct or not, whether interpreted correctly or not) does not resolve the “paradox”!
(I asked Brian Greene about this, and that was essentially his answer. And yes, that was a “popular” book he was discussing.)
Also furthermore you have not resolved any potential paradox having actually existed if there had been a claim of instantaneous “communication” by making it seem that “absolute spatial separation cannot exist”. Because if this was an actual form of true “communication”, you have created a host of other paradoxes, requiring only special relativity to invoke. These are the only interpretations of a lack of “absolute spatial separation” I can figure as intended meaning from your statement.
Then in your long post above (top of page 3), you sort of change subjects from the issue of EPR, to the issue of relative size measurements. But those points don’t resolve those issues, either. You still agree that there is no “absolute” measurement system, but don’t resolve the issues I brought up with Richard. I think it would be helpful to write more clearly what issue is being addressed in each part of the post, and relate back with a summary that shows the original issue in some sort of resolution or framework being addressed by the argument. So far any relationship is unclear.
[ 02. November 2003, 01:38: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 02. November 2003 02:25
quote:
As far as I can tell, there seems to be general agreement that the whole notion of a “paradox” was an erroneous logical argument in the first place. So presenting a physics theory that shows relativity and QM does not “resolve” the “paradox”—as there was never a real “paradox” in the first place. Most specifically, that we “realize that an absolute spatial separation cannot exist” (whether correct or not, whether interpreted correctly or not) does not resolve the “paradox”!
Gedankin, it is the EPR nonlocality paradox. Of course, on one level of perception, it appears that two objects are physically separated, on another, higher level of abstraction, the two objects are not separated, since their boundary is zero, so the locality principle of relativity is actually not violated as Bell's theorem seems to explain. The resolution of the paradox is the realization that there is no paradox to begin with, once the higher level of symmetry is understood ![[Wink]](wink.gif) Locality, and the CTMU? is preserved.
So the multiverse with spatially separated universes becomes completely superfluous and totally unecessary.
Goodbye materialistic multiverse
Here is a page describing Bell's theorem:
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/bell.html
quote:
Almost thirty years later J.S. Bell proved that the results predicted by quantum mechanics could not be explained by any theory which preserved locality. In other words, if you set up an experiment like that described by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, and you get the results predicted by quantum mechanics, then there is no way that locality could be true. Years later the experiments were done, and the predictions of quantum mechanics proved to be accurate. In short, locality is dead.
Bell is no longer correct, locality is alive and well
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 02. November 2003 11:37
Russell, I don't want to go on about EPR in this thread, as it is the wrong place (unless you can relate it back to expansion/contraction issues). You have not demonstrated that the resolution, for example, does not create other "paradoxes", due then to the apparent "communication" at the "higher level of abstraction". (But that really gets off topic!) And you have correctly noted that the only apparent "paradox" is non-locality--something that is also resolved with "many worlds" for example (though I don't think that many worlds is really reasonable, I present it as one alternate).
But you claim that locality is preserved--then claim furthermore that "materialistic universe" is gone. These seem contradictory. Now I'm not saying that CTMU document does not provide useful ideas about a way to resolve certain issues. In fact I think that there even might be "quantum logic" and fuzzy logic arguments that might have vaguely similar aspects to ideas proposed in the CTMU document. I certainly don't believe that CTMU provides a unique resolution of these issues, if it does indeed provide any resolution at all. (And I doubt that it resolves them at all.)
[ 02. November 2003, 11:42: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 02. November 2003 14:18
quote:
Gedankin:
But you claim that locality is preserved--then claim furthermore that "materialistic universe" is gone. These seem contradictory. Now I'm not saying that CTMU document does not provide useful ideas about a way to resolve certain issues. In fact I think that there even might be "quantum logic" and fuzzy logic arguments that might have vaguely similar aspects to ideas proposed in the CTMU document. I certainly don't believe that CTMU provides a unique resolution of these issues, if it does indeed provide any resolution at all. (And I doubt that it resolves them at all.)
It's not contradictory Gedankin, and the quote is "goodbye materialistic multiverse", where all the infinite number? of universes are spatially separated. The goal for "theories" is to eliminate the infinities and be logically consistent, including eliminating the absurd proposition that an infinite number of universes are actually existing. Plus it is on topic, because we are dealing with the duality of physics for a circle of radius R and 1/R . Spacetime Expansion vs. Material Contraction. Objects and the interstellar space within the galaxies shrink in tandem, while the intergalactic space shrinks at a slower rate, which gives the local perception of expanding intergalactic spacetime.
[<-[->[<-[->[U]<-]->]<-]->]
So the boundary for the universe is that it has no boundary. Universal resonance.
Very similar to the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, but also different.
Why not describe Einstein's equation as a rule that tells the geometry of space how to evolve as function of time? Lorentzian manifolds M, diffeomorphic to R x S, where the manifold S represents space, and t, an element of R, represents time. So spacetime is sliced into instants of time as an arbitrary choice, or possibly units of Planck's constant.
F: M---> R x S
Spacetime becomes quantized or "sliced up" but that could be what nature really does. According to relativity, an objects position and momentum can only be defined with respect to a another object. Yet the universe as a whole has no frame of reference outside of itself, so how can its momentum[expansion - exterior motion] be defined? It can only be defined with reference to itself. Worldlines fill up spacetime and the criss crossing of world lines mark events beyond the need for coordinate systems or coordinates. Points in spacetime are given the name "events" so there is a coordinate independence.
The geometric view of physics means that the laws of physics are the same in every Lorentz reference system. Local Lorentz invariance. But since the universe has no exterior reference frame, and it must refer to itself, its world line intersects with itself. This quantized-evolution of spacetime dictated by GR and QM, means that the world line of the past intersects with the world lines of the present, for the universe. A geometric stacking of space like slices, parameterized by t, The universe is a function of itself. Spacetime becomes compressed. As the time evolution proceeds in the thermodynamic direction of t, the space like sheets continually increase in density. The information storage of space time.
Is it possible to also derive Einstein's field equation strictly in terms of quantum mechanical operators? using n-dimensional cross sections of cotangent vector spaces? Near a massive object M, the *isobar* cross sections increase in density, as wavefunction density gradients?
Two sinusoidal travelling waves with the same amplitude and wavelength moving in opposite directions on a string, become resonating "standing waves":
As the entropy continues to increase in the universe, and if the universe is a closed system, the entropy may be considered to be the interpretation of a "damping force" that is analogous to the shrinking matter concepts of Richard Quist and Christopher M. Langan. This damping force may also be one possible solution to the dark matter enigma.
Solve the Schwarzschild solution for the entire universe, since the universe can be postulated to be a closed system with nothing outside itself. The condition of "nothingness" leads one to ask "What are the properties of nothingness?" Of course there are no measurable properties, but nothingness in itself must be a type of massless solid. A condition that has no distance - metric scales. In other words, there is no outside to the universe, no measurable border between something and nothing.
Nothing then becomes analogous to a perfectly symmetrical pressure force on the surface of existence.
[-F]^2 ---->|U|<---- +[F]^2
Simple harmonic oscillation given by the equation [F]^2 = [-K*X]^2
[ 02. November 2003, 14:23: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 02. November 2003 14:31
I suggest that if all this means anything, that it can lead to highly mathematical treatment of a large number of observables (e.g. existing observations). With that, such notions here expressed in very abstract terms could lead to detailed mathematical predictions--and most importantly checked with actual observation. The key will be a cohesive theory which is consistent with a large number of observations. Write that, publish, see if it gets torn up by those who know details that might be contradictory, or if it survives the onslaught.
IP: Logged
|
|
Richard
Member
Member # 857
|
posted 03. November 2003 14:30
Aliet,
My point in regards to galaxies shrinking was that their possible collapse is irrelevant to me because I'm not claiming, as Eddington (or interpretations of him) did that the space between galaxies is wholly the result of the shrinking of galaxies.
In regards to anti-gravity, I should have stated "I hypothesize that anti-gravity is the cause of contraction of space-time".
quote:
If it can't be tested and falsified it is not scientific, pure and simple.
On the PBS program "The Elegant Universe" physicist Steven Wienberg criticized string theory as being "safe" (meant in a negative way), since because of the distance scales that are involved it can never be tested. Do you agree with this, and if so, aren't you saying that it is not a theory according to the criteria you stated? I am not to trying parallel my work with string theory, just investigating your flexibility in interpreting the criteria. Actually, I find the points you've made insightful and helpful to the purpose of me being more clear in stating the goals of my work, and I will consider putting forward my work as just a hypothesis. However, I would like to make a few points of my own. Isn't there a difference between the hypothesis "space-time shrinks with time" and "by assuming that space-time shrinks with one can unify the laws of physics", or, less ambitiously, "demonstrate an underlying unity in the laws of physics". Though not very precise in presentation, I believe that the milder version of the latter statement most closely reflects the statement and intent on my site, though the more ambitious version is definitely implied, and at times stated. Since I'm beginning with the assumption that space-time contracts, though, isn't it inappropriate for you to criticize my making use of the assumption to achieve my stated purpose?
The primary path that I use in trying to achieve my goal of demonstrating an underlying unity in the laws of physics is to introduce a second hypothesis that states "by interpreting special relativity in terms of contraction one can formulate an alternative interpretation of the nature of quantum phenomena. This then would demonstrate the unity of all physics laws since the laws of gravity are already derived from special relativity". A third hypothesis that I state, which if proven will affirm the aforementioned one but which is not necessary to prove it, is, "by interpreting special relativity in terms of contraction one can formulate a hidden variable theory (the hidden variable being time accelerated states) for describing the nature of quantum phenomena". A fourth hypothesis is "the expansion of the Universe is caused by ant-gravity, and laws governing anti-gravity can be deduced from the contraction principle". Granted that I have not sufficiently supported the third and fourth hypothesis, and maybe not even the second, but is it necessary to definitely prove these in order to prove the first which is "by assuming that space-time shrinks one can demonstrate an underlying unity in all the laws of physics".
My way of attempting to prove the hypothesis has been to interpret observations and current understandings in such a way as to support it. Isn't this the method that Darwin used in his theory of evolution to support his hypothesis of natural selection, and isn't his theory considered to be scientific? It would no doubt be better if I had each hypothesis proven, and it is to that goal that I have constructed my work as I have, in that by demonstrating the viability of the universal applicability of the concept others might see the worth of the concept and seek to prove each hypothesis.
In regards to proving the hypothesis that space-time contracts with time, though not on my site I am now seeking to demonstrate that our current interpretations of observations of objects in space deep space are flawed because at these distances what is assumed to be increases in mass due to velocities are actually due to a combination of said increases plus the larger rest mass that an object would have in the past if contraction does actually occur. My explanation of time accelerated states (on my site) provides the basis for this work, as it explains how objects under time accelerated conditions can move through space with reduced increases in inertial mass relative to those demanded by relativity. The issue of the whether these objects are accelerating (recent observations), and at what rate are the key to the solution since determining the point in time and the position from which the information was sent tells us how much rest mass the object should have had at that point in time in the past relative to now, and velocity at that time tells us the expected increases in mass (according to relativity) due to velocity. If the measure of mass is greater than the expected increase due to velocity, we can conclude that the excess mass results because we are measuring the larger past mass of the object.
Gedanken and Russell, I'll reply to your posts soon.
Richard
[ 03. November 2003, 14:37: Message edited by: Richard ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Aliet Jacob
Member
Member # 908
|
posted 04. November 2003 06:20
Richard,
Your points about theory are on the spot. However, with regard to string theory, its proposed as a TOE. We have Tegmatrk's universes etc, we have the big bang model and inflationary universe models/theories. TOE, I think, is a human desire for the ultimate ensemble...as expressed by eminent physicists. The string theory contradicts nothing. Indeed, TOEs are supposed to be able to unite or subsume all theories. Yours is not a TOE so I think it should be held to the same standard as other scientific theories. But I admit ther term theory has found 'loose' application in certain circles.
The weakness of this contracting universe model is that it CONTRADICTS accepted scientific theories. Of course you dont expect people accept your theory without it forbidding certain things, explaining certain things etc. So far, its only explaining itself but not the universe.
You have to demonstrate that the current models are flawed, then you provide the alternative.
I can see that you argue that your contracting and expanding universe does not rule out the singularity, but at the same time, I do not see why you think the inflationary universe is flawed. That doesnt strengthen your case.
And you still haven't given us a clue why a contracting universe (1) would start contracting(2) would stop contracting. That would be of great help. I mean, when does antigravity exceed gravity and when does gravity take over?
Why isnt the shrink unstoppable (as per 'big crunch' model?)
How can we refute your theory? Is it as 'irrefutable' as the CTMU?
These things are not only good for skeptics, but demonstrate how much thought a theory has been given.
quote:
My way of attempting to prove the hypothesis has been to interpret observations and current understandings in such a way as to support it.
And so far, no observational evidence supports your theory - am I right?
Otherwise, I wish you the best in your research. Thank you for your time.
[ 04. November 2003, 06:45: Message edited by: Aliet Jacob ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Richard
Member
Member # 857
|
posted 04. November 2003 16:41
Gedanken,
Russell has a good grasp of the points I was trying to make in my post, as he usually does, and you are correct in saying that, in regards to physics at least, abstract concepts are of limited use unless they lead to mathematical descriptions that are consistent with observation. To develop the shrinking concept as a physics theory, rates of contraction must first be determined for space, both relative to itself and to the size of the Universe. Special relativity holds the key to determining space contraction relative to itself because it describes the relationship between non-dilated and dilated time conditions. While contraction rates relative to the size of the Universe seem obvious, relativity shows that space is more complex than it appears.
My approach to this issue is based upon the accepted facts that the Universe has an age, (T, whatever that exact value may be), and that from our vantage point in space-time it seems to be expanding in every direction, with velocities progressively increasing the further a point in space is from our vantage point, with the furthest reaches of space approaching c. With these two facts we can associate each point in space with a velocity relative to us, thus also with a time dilation relative to us. Also, since we assume an age for the Universe, using the time dilation factor we can associate a relative point in time to each point in space. Of course with relativity we must also accept that each point in space possesses it's own vantage point with zero velocity for itself and with the same relative structure for it's "vision" of the Universe from that point as just described. In regards to local motion, if we describe the fastest velocities at the furthest reaches as approaching the limit c, we can associate any local velocity relative to a given vantage point to some position in the Universe which is moving at the same velocity relative to that vantage point, since all velocities are represented somewhere in the Universe. Just to complete the unification of time dilation with the space of the Universe and the contraction of space, relativity also describes mass increases associated with time dilations, and of the same magnitude as the dilation. This increase in mass then can the be associated with both points in time and positions in the Universe relative to a given vantage point as determined by the velocity of those positions. Since we are assuming that reality, including matter, is shrinking with time, we can now determine the change in mass from each point in time to the next. Finally, to show the linkage between time dilation and the expanded size of the space of the past, relativity shows that a particular time dilation occurs for a body with particular velocity relative to a motionless observer, or vantage point, this velocity usually expressed in terms time as measured for the non-dilated reference frame. However, if we express this motion in terms of dilated time, it's velocity becomes uv, where u is the time dilation factor associated with the body in motion, and v is the velocity in terms of the non-dilated frame. This velocity, uv, then corresponds to the expanded distance scale of space at the point in the past associated with that particular time dilation. The above description is the basic mathematical foundation I begin with.
You are almost correct Gedanken with regards to the time dilation of the initial singularity. I could have hypothetical meant at the limit, where time stops, though actually I don't see it as reaching that limit, but very close, and this represents the time quanta. Again, Russell is correct in understanding that I mean to quantisize time and space, giving a finite number of positions within the Universe, and also a fundamental unit of space which contracts with time.
Russell is correct about what I mean by using the initial singularity as a type of preferred reference frame, but I use it a bit more than just a hypothetical sense, because though in one regard you are right Gedanden in saying that the state of the singularity seems (I'll explain later why I've added seems) to exist for only a short period of time, in another sense it can be said to exist today, spread throughout the Universe, in the form of the furthest reaches of the Universes, moving at velocities approaching c, as perceived from each vantage point within the Universe. Though hypothetical, if we allow these furthest reaches of space to achieve velocities that produce time dilations equal to the one produced by the original singularity which defines the time quantum unit, they can be said to correspond, and in fact, to be in union with, the initial singularity. Keep in mind too that from the perspective of someone at these furthest reaches, we, at this point in space and time, will be perceived to be in this primordial dilated state.
The section of my site that I referred to dealing with the motion of more than 2 bodies relative to each other reveals just how relative relativity makes our determinations of position and velocity. This complicates any effort to define a primary frame of reference, but I don't think it makes it impossible. What is also revealed in considering the issue is that unless we accept that there are an infinite number of Universes surrounding ours, or unless we consider ours to be located on the surface of a sphere, either case making position determinations completely relative, we will have a center point in our Universe, or group of a finite number of universes, and this would define a de facto primary frame. However, I believe I have another solution to the issue that allows us one Universe with a finite number of frames and a definition of a relative center point that includes every frame. As described above, I describe a mathematical base for a Universe where each point in space defines a time dilated condition relative to other points, and also, a unique non-dilated center point for time-cones associate with each point. Each of these center points, though, are laying next to another, so if we have a finite number of them in a finite universe, we still have a center located time-cone, thus a de facto primary frame. However, what we can do is place all the center points at the same point. This of course would mean that all positions in space that we perceive from our position are simultaneously at some distance from us in the Universe, as part of our time-cone, and also at our position, where all the centers of the time-cones are located. However, there are two more things I do with this model. First I allow the center points of the time-cones to oscillate in every direction relative to each other, within a certain range, and, I add one more, and only one, center-point and time-cone, and this defines accelerated time frames relative to the others. The center-point of this time-cone defines a time acceleration (max A) relative to the center-points, which are themselves defining a time acceleration of (max a) relative to the time dilation of the initial singularity, thus this acceleration time-cone defines a time acceleration of (max a) squared relative the time dilation of the initial singularity. It oscillates like the others, but the positions that it takes are always the position of one of the others, always changing which one, though, with the one which it correlates with, or lines up with, becoming the primary frame. Thus, this accelerated time-cone determines the primary frame, and all of the others become the primary frame from time to time. The motion of the center point of this accelerated time cone can be defined by a variable length three-dimensional rotating vector. Also, the accelerated cone enables time-accelerated particles to move from cone to cone (burrowing), transferring information and relocating particles between the cones. This time-accelerated cone thus solves entanglement problems since information can be sent almost instaneously, and there is no backwards time, as it simply provides pilot particles to carve out a path to the future.
The simplest way to conceive of the center point of this accelerated cone relative to our present position in space-time is to consider that if you time accelerate yourself to the maximum possible degree, max. A (the relative accelerated state of the center-point of the accelerated cone), your mass would diminish by a factor of max. A, (the inverse of dilation's mass increase), and you would oscillate with the centerpoint, this center point though representing an absolute motionless point and minimum mass-energy, and thus all reality would actually be oscillating relative to you. Also, we can consider all mass-energy to have to have motion relative to this maximum acceleration state and point, and it is because of this motion relative to that point that mass-energy has the measure that it has, in what ever frame it's in.
The above is simply a version of the structures and concepts that I use to describe quantum phenomena on my web-site.
Richard
[ 04. November 2003, 17:35: Message edited by: Richard ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Richard
Member
Member # 857
|
posted 06. November 2003 12:09
Aliet,
The state of development of my theory is the real issue that we've been discussing. You are right that more needs to be done in terms of mathematical development and making testable predictions in order for my theory to be accepted by the physics community as a genuine physic theory. This doesn't though mean that it is not a scientific theory, in the "Evolutionary" sense. Also, I do envision this as a potential TOE, but I concede that for physicists to accept it as such there needs to be much more mathematical development. What I have attempted to do thus far is to provide a basic mathematical foundation from which this development can spring, and also, solid conceptual explanations which are necessary since the concept of contraction ultimately produces some very abstract concepts. The possibility that a basic concept (contraction) described by a basic mathematical formulation can produce a description that truly reflects the complexity of the Universe is one of the philosophical reasons that convinces me of the validity of my theory. The concepts I've developed, while hard to grasp because of their abstract nature, do make me believe that a full mathematical treatment is possible.
In contrast to your statement, I use these concepts to re-interpret observations that have already been interpreted in a particular way, and while I am contradicting current interpretations of these observations, I don't believe that I am contradicting the observations. After all, the relative nature of our interpretations of the expanding nature of the Universe has been a central issue on this thread. We're all observing the same thing, but interpreting our observations differently. It is true that the contraction interpretation goes against our intuition, since the expanding interpretation seems self-evident. This though was also a problem that Einstein had with relativity and the founders of quantum the theory had with their ideas. Judgment will come with time; all I can do is present my case as best I can.
As I've stated in a previous post, I think the first evidence supporting the contraction interpretation will be had from observations of deep space which can only be explained with the contraction interpretation. According to what I've read in regards to John Moffat et al's work, physicists will soon be testing observations from a deep space supernova to find indications of a reduced value for Planck's constant, this indicating a faster speed for light in the past. This is the type of observation we will find, if we look properly, that will confirm contraction theory if it is correct.
As far as the question of what is contracting, my hypothesis is that all space-time and mass-energy are comprised of the same two fundamental particles, gravitons and anti-gravitons. We can conceive of these as transparent spheres in which the surface of the sphere possesses what I call an expansion-contraction front, a type of standing wave pulse in which one direction of the amplitude is away from the center, the other towards the center. The difference between a graviton and an anti-graviton is that for a graviton it's outward amplitude (OA1) represents an expanding force on the sphere while it's inward amplitude (IA1) represents an attracting force toward the center of the sphere, while for an anti-graviton the outward amplitude (OA2) represents a repelling force for the sphere while the inward amplitude (IA2) represents a contracting force on the sphere. Another difference between the two is that for a graviton (OA1) is less in magnitude than (IA1), and for an anti-gravitation (OA2) is less than (IA2. Also (OA2) is equal to (OA1), and (IA2) is equal to (IA1). A graviton and an anti-graviton can be combined in three ways. The first in such a way that (IA2) is reduced by (OA1) and (IA1) is reduced by (OA2), this producing a particle with a slight contracting force and a slight attracting force, and this actually being a particle of space-time (so space naturally contracts), which I call an angraviton particle (ang). A second combination produces a particle with no overall contracting and expanding qualities, (OA1) being balanced by (OA2) and (IA1) being balanced by (IA2), and this is a photon. Photons always combine with angravitons (though the inverse is not true),this combination also existing in the form of matter. (I want to note here that with these angravitons, photons, gravitons and anti-gravitons contained within a volume of space, the resulting interaction will produce expansion-contraction fronts that, to me, resemble strings.)
The third combination of which I spoke would have existed for all gravitons and anti-gravitons (the only energies) at the beginning of the Universe and in this combination all (OA1)s and (OA2)s re-enforce each other, as does (IA1)s and (IA2)s. Creation occurs in one period of the pulse, with the first half of the period (the OA half) expanding all energy and space into existence, and the second half of the period (the IA half) contracting what was expanded into existence back towards it's own center. Since the combination for gravitons and anti-gravitons just described produces a greater inward amplitude than outward, the inward part of the pulse produces a massive explosion. This explosion causes a rapid expansion of the Universe, not only because of the rebound effect that would result from the collision, but also because of the disorientation and recombining that result for the gravitons and anti-gravitons.
What makes the Big Shrink better than what we have now? If it is true it is better, for the truth is always better.
Richard
IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Member
Member # 160
|
posted 07. November 2003 06:34
Richard Quist wrote:
quote:
"As far as the question of what is contracting, my hypothesis is that all space-time and mass-energy are comprised of the same two fundamental particles, gravitons and anti-gravitons. We can conceive of these as transparent spheres in which the surface of the sphere possesses what I call an expansion-contraction front, a type of standing wave pulse in which one direction of the amplitude is away from the center, the other towards the center."
If I understand this properly, a graviton is postulated to be a particle with two degrees of freedom -- an "inward amplitude" and an "outward amplitude". I note that this is contrary to conventional wisdom, according to which the as-yet unobserved graviton is anticipated to have five (or four*?) internal degrees of freedom (in the language of particle physics a graviton is expected to be a "spin-2" particle).
A few sentences later, we are given a representation of a photon:
quote:
"The first in such a way that (IA2) is reduced by (OA1) and (IA1) is reduced by (OA2), this producing a particle with a slight contracting force and a slight attracting force, and this actually being a particle of space-time (so space naturally contracts), which I call an angraviton particle (ang). A second combination produces a particle with no overall contracting and expanding qualities, (OA1) being balanced by (OA2) and (IA1) being balanced by (IA2), and this is a photon."
Conventional wisdom holds that a photon has three (two in free space) internal degrees of freedom. So what is the difference between a linearly polarized photon and a circularly polarized photon, according to your hypothetical physics?
It is also difficult to understand how the composition of your gravitons will generate (at least as approximations) more familiar attributes like mass and electrical charge. What is the difference between uncharged and charged particles, according your hypothetical physics? And how does the Coulomb force (or some approximation of it) arise?
Erik
* A massive spin-S particle has 2S+1 spin degrees of freedom. A photon is a spin-1 particle, but in free space it has two degrees of freedom, not three, because only transverse waves are allowed in free space. I don't know if a similar effect is expected for gravitons.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic