The Dance of Shiva

[damccut]

P.S. A brane is a unit cell and so would a looped string be.

Technically, I suppose that is true, but the strings cross the brane boundaries and bypass the simple connections that Steven posted graphically.

[Felix Schrodinger]

I think that either you don't have a good answer, or you just used a bad example. If you were to slo-mo the spider, you would definitely see that there is transmission of each footstep along the web as a wave/vibration. I don't see any way around this effect unless you use something like I do, a wave that travels at approximately 8.95E+16 m/s, which is about 9-1/2 light years per second. That is definitely fast enough to account for the apparent instantaneous transfer that is observed.

Hi Damccut

Yes, I did say it was difficult but you missed the point about the example. There is no relationship between the speed of the spider as it traverses the web and the speed with which the web distorts. In the example, both transmissions are part of the real world and hence have finite velocities. In the case of gravity, whilst the effect is due to mass, its transmission is not achieved by real world particles and hence the speed can be infinite.

regards
Felix

[Felix Schrodinger]

Anyway, as usual, I ramble, and I still need to read more of your original post, but I like the general flavor and quite a few of your comments I emphasized with quite easily.

Yes, indeed Steve

You have a lot of points (and even a few strings) in there but you need to bring them out in a more structured manner if you want me to relate to them. My approach is to take things in a very simple, step by step, way with illustration, so that each part of the theory can be understood and discussed in isolation. Your complex written descriptions don't (yet) provide me with a clear visualisation of your model so I'm finding it difficult to relate to and respond on individual points.

regards
Felix

[SB_UK]

Can I ask whether we're all confusing the sub-atomic realm by trying to give names (or nouns) to verbs.

Can't get over the feeling that we're making life harder for ourselves by conceptualizing a force (or verb) as a noun -
a process which makes sense from the perspective of mind - easier for us to gain handle upon -

Supposedly simplifying continuous fields into particles to get our 'heads' around them -
when no such distinction exists.

Supposedly simplifying - though absolutely not so when we extend our focus and attempt to combine the knowledge we've gained on entitites which we've characterized (in our own minds) as separate.

The question is whether introducing the idea of 'separateness' is introducing a logical error into our thought process -
- a logical error which prevents us from attaining unification.

Can't get over the feeling that we're making life harder for ourselves by conceptualizing a force (or verb) as a noun -
a process which makes sense from the perspective of mind - easier for us to gain handle upon -

- however deeply problematic in terms of defining a workable (holistic) mechanism for.

--- An example (of what I'm trying to get at) ---
... most people (I believe) on site think of God as a verb rather than noun -
~that is~ that there's no God (person) -
however that there is a God (process which {facilitates,permits} structures of increasingly greater complexity to be generated).

The mind appears (as it {develops,learns}) - to be characterized with the capacity for encapsulation of a more complex reality in which we're able to comprehend reality as free from static nouns.

Is our mind introducing the error which has prevented us from arriving at (total) unification?

Is there any chance that we might be able to overcome the problems of unification by viewing the entire subatomic realm (entire realm) as representing increasingly complex structures (a structure representing motion)
forming
from same basic substrate.

One sentence summary of this idea
------------------------------------------------
Can we dispense with the idea of 'autonomous' particles and replace them with a model characterized by the idea of a continuously evolving force field
(as all there is) -
- removing (simplifying away) quarks, leptons and bosons into a single evolutionary series of a single 1 dimensional (linear) force.

[damccut]

Hi Damccut

its transmission is not achieved by real world particles and hence the speed can be infinite.

regards
Felix

What is it achieved by? In one stroke you have disassociated forces and matter into two classes, real and unreal, yet you must keep then connected somehow or gravity and matter couldn't interact. You totally lost me.

[SteveA]

Yes, indeed Steve

You have a lot of points (and even a few strings) in there but you need to bring them out in a more structured manner if you want me to relate to them. My approach is to take things in a very simple, step by step, way with illustration, so that each part of the theory can be understood and discussed in isolation. Your complex written descriptions don't (yet) provide me with a clear visualisation of your model so I'm finding it difficult to relate to and respond on individual points.

regards
Felix

Yes, I know how it is trying to read and understand others posts, well how about just a simple example of how I view the tie between quantum mechanics and relativity. It's very close to some of your descriptions:

First, let's assume that the universe is much more complex than our physical perceptions and cognitive powers are able to understand.

We have evidence from quantum mechanics that objects can "tunnel" through, what would otherwise be obstructions, in a probabilistic manner.

In this case space should be diffusing on some level (not specifically stretching or expanding as this doesn't rearrange events in time and ultimately events in time are not described by their duration, which is subjective, but by the order of events in a timeline).

So anyway, if we have quantum events capable of swapping the locations of objects in space, then a diffusion occurs.

If we placed a pile of beans on a table and could shake it so that each bean moved 1 inch in some direction every time the table was shook, we would find the pile diffusing (expanding) over time. As the bean internally swap positions, if we rescaled this pile back to its original size, it would still appear to have changed because the internal elements are internally reordered (internal time for matter).

If we instead shook the table in a specific direction, the pile of beans would not diffuse and expand but instead the pile would remain tightly clumped and move at maximum velocity in some direction (length contraction, time dilation).

Now if we had an observer that was another pile of beans and each "saw" each other in this system, if they both diffuses, neither would appear to grow larger than the other (relativity of scale) but instead, due to the growth in scale and increased length of each "ruler" the two would appear to move toward each other (gravity).

We can measure the time passed in a system by computing the statistical energy each bean has accumulated.

If a bean moves in just a single dimension, we could accumulate +1/-1 motions and find a pathway, for example, of this:

0,-1,0,+1,+2,+3,+2,+3

If we square these values, we can compute an approximation of linear time:

0^2=0
(-1)^2=1
0^2=0
1^2=1
2^2=4
3^2=9
2^2=4
3^2=9
...

This grows approximately linearly.

Hence we can measure the cumulative time an object has experienced by adding the squares of all the displacements in each dimension of change:

t1 - t0 ~=(x1-x0)^2+(y1-y0)^2+(z1-z0)^2

(Where x1 and x0 are the measured and initial positions of an object)

Notice that we can generalize for the motion of an object moving in any number of dimensions that possess such a chaotic, cumulative property of motion (and it need not specifically be unit motion, but can also be a uniform distribution or gaussian spread etc.)

Notice also that (x1-x0) is a distance, hence we can rewrite these as distances:

dt ~= dx^2+dy^2+dz^2

And of course because distance^2=(vx^2+vy^2+vz^2), we can rewrite this as either:

dt ~= d^2

So we have a fundamental distortion to distances and times in space that makes distant objects appear to have aged faster than linearly (dark matter and different forms of galaxies) - when you consider that this age is an accumulated diffusion, which is energetic, it adds a wall of entropy at a distance that can't be seen past (the Big Bang - which can be simultaineously interpreted as being a singularity or all encompassing because it has no coherent relationship to the properties of objects in local space).

This is only true for an object undergoing diffusion (which requires a component of memory to accumulate the displacements and a "random" source) and it's not a first person perspective from with the system.

In order to add an observer and make relative measurements, we need to compute the relative rates of internal aging of two objects undergoing diffusion.

If we had a single fundamental particle, it does not internally age because no matter how it moves, it does no have alteration made to its internal composition, but if we have two particles, then they tend to experience a relative separation over time (the strong force), whereas if we add additional particles to each object, then they also internally expand and age (matter and gravity).

So if we have two material objects, each undergoing a diffusion and measuring the relative rate of internal change of each other, they normally appear to be aging at identical rates, but if we have one of them biased toward motion along a single dimension (for example, let's say probability of motion p in a +x direction versus a 1-p probability of motion in a -x direction) we get an apparent differential determined by p (or the average macroscopic velocity).

I was getting into some mathematical derivations and I can do this if you'd like, but let me just jump to the chase with a few simple numeric examples:

If p=1/2, then there is not a preferential bias in either direction to motion in a dimension, and if, for example, an object is currently at a distance of 3 (which is an "age" of 3^2=9) from some reference, it will statistically appear to move a unit of "time" forward (and arrive at sqrt(10) distance):

3+1=4, 4^2=16 with probability of p
3-1=2, 2^2=4 with probability of 1-p

And the average "age" becomes is 16*p+4*(1-p)=16/2+4/2=20/2=10 and 10-3^2=9, so the rate of aging appears constant.

But notice that for two particles, we have to look at all 4 possible combinations of motion between them (they both move negative, one moves positive and one moves negative or both move positive).

The distributions of distances and probabilities under these 4 combinations are:

1) both negative, change in distance is 0 and probability is (1-p)^2
2) One changes positive and the other negative results in a change of either +2 or -2 (depending upon which we use as a reference) and the probability is 2*p*(1-p)=2p-2p^2
3) both move positive and there is no internal change in distance (no internal aging) and the probability is p^2

So we have a system composed of 2 particles appear to move at maximum velocity at a single unit of time, with no aging at a probability of p^2+(1-p)^2=1-2p+2p^2.

Notice that the average velocity (in units of light speed) is 2p-1, and so we can substitute average velocity and derive the probability of two particles moving parallel together and not "internally aging" as a system as:

v=2p-1
2p=v+1
p=(v+1)/2
p(stopped)=1-2(v+1)/2+2((v+1)/2)^2=1-(v+1)+((v+1)^2)/2
p(stopped)=1-v-1+(v^2+2v+1)/2
p(stopped)=(v^2+1)/2

And the complimentary probability of the pair of particles aging, which would be interpreted as a velocity through time, would be 1-p(stopped)

time'=1-p(stopped)=1-(v^2+1)/2=1-1/2-v^2/2=1/2-v^2/2

Notice that the maximum average rate of time in this is only half the possible rate of change because at maximum velocity in aging we're statistically standing still and having much of the diffusion cancel, but if we measured the relative rates of aging from a similarly diffusing, but stationary observer, we get:

time'(moving)/time'(stationary)=(1/2-v^2/2)/(1/2-0^2/2)=1-v^2/1=1-v^2

And with v in units of c (as I scaled it), this becomes time'(relative)=1-(v/c)^2 and that's the perspective of time dilation in Relativity, though again, v applies to any classical energies diffusing into dimensions that can accumulate it. To get to a coherent quantum perspective, the squared terms need to be tossed out.

.............

Anyway, that's the beginning of one area that I've been working on, but there are many other fields we can tie together by transforming the representations into different perspectives as other faucets of experience are added (such as conservation of subjective rate of time and a perceptual conservation of information rates and a conservation of cognitive predictive abilities and conservation of distinguishable spaces etc. - every limitation creates a new property - you can't touch something that offers no resistance and similarly everything you can see, touch or understand etc. represents a limit ... though similarly, every new limit you can discover is the opportunity for an entirely new realm of experience - if you push, there is something to push on, if you don't like being pushed, stop pushing - my apologies, that last part was just a comment to myself ;)).

In the end, it appears all these particles can only be fixed in a single space when they're all connected together by a single process constructing them in sequence (like a single computer program, that when executed, generates the entire set and the evolution of them over time - of course there need not be a single programmer, but a single space needs to have them all connected by a single process - and we can more virtual spaces outside that as needed, but that's not particularly important - concrete reality needs them all connected to a common origin and located at a specific position relative to it - a timeline allows these to be serially constructed, but the process itself defines the entire timeline).

[Felix Schrodinger]

Can I ask whether we're all confusing the sub-atomic realm by trying to give names (or nouns) to verbs.

You need to converse with Fredrick

Can we dispense with the idea of 'autonomous' particles and replace them with a model characterized by the idea of a continuously evolving force field?

Exactly what my model does. The particles of the real world are created from a matrix (aether if you prefer) which provides the background in the form of a continously evolving (gravitational) field.

[Felix Schrodinger]

What is it achieved by? In one stroke you have disassociated forces and matter into two classes, real and unreal, yet you must keep then connected somehow or gravity and matter couldn't interact. You totally lost me.

Hi damccut

We don't get anything for nothing so all of the effects which we observe in nature have something underlying them; hence the search for a TOE. My belief is that the main forces of nature are effects caused by the movement of particles in the continuously warping gravitational field. The standard model very reasonably describes the fermions which we experience but also uses bosons as force carriers. I reject this concept of force 'carriers' as nothing more than a series of mathematical devices to quantify what we observe.

Yes I separate them absolutely; massive particles consist of string like entities (quarks if you like to call them that) which exhibit properties such as mass, charge and spin. Gravity and E/M are effects due to the warping of the background in which these particles move.

The real world is the one which we experience but underlying it is the gravitational field or aether which we do not experience directly. This must have properties of its own which we can only guess at by trying to understand their influence on our real world. The rate at which gravity responds to mass is one of these unknowables and the closest we can get to estimating its speed, at present, is to assume it to be infinite. As it does not consist of real world particles there is no reason why this should not be so.

regards
Felix

[Felix Schrodinger]

In the end, it appears all these particles can only be fixed in a single space when they're all connected together by a single process constructing them in sequence (like a single computer program, that when executed, generates the entire set and the evolution of them over time - of course there need not be a single programmer, but a single space needs to have them all connected by a single process - and we can more virtual spaces outside that as needed, but that's not particularly important - concrete reality needs them all connected to a common origin and located at a specific position relative to it - a timeline allows these to be serially constructed, but the process itself defines the entire timeline).

Yes indeed, Steve but have you not heard the axiom "a picture is worth a thousand words"? Can you illustrate any of the above to cut down on the length and let us appreciate your ideas more concisely?

regards
Felix

[Felix Schrodinger]

Just a thought:

If General Relativity is so accurate, why do we need dark matter???