An Idea

[Max™]

Spacetime is not actually formulated with the concept of matter, merely placeholders for it known as tensors.

Prof, I'm saying it would be a dynamic structure, background independent.


It is a strange realization to be had, yet it is very plain when you see it, General Relativity says nothing about matter, or what it's properties may be. It is only about the geometry of spacetime, and the ways in which the warping of spacetime describes gravity and motion.

It is then that you insert matter where the tensor locations are, and everything lines up with observation.

[G_burnett]

And if the judgments are implicit what are they?

negation judgment (implicit) proposition values are counter-diction

only when not implicit or explicit do we get = contingencies to the value of the propositional variables.

[Profpat]

Spacetime is not actually formulated with the concept of matter, merely placeholders for it known as tensors.

Prof, I'm saying it would be a dynamic structure, background independent.


It is a strange realization to be had, yet it is very plain when you see it, General Relativity says nothing about matter, or what it's properties may be. It is only about the geometry of spacetime, and the ways in which the warping of spacetime describes gravity and motion.

It is then that you insert matter where the tensor locations are, and everything lines up with observation.

Hi Max;

Again you mention matter. DOES SPACE MOVE? If so don't you need Time, Space and Motion?

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Off our current topic, but applicable to the threads topic, is the criticism I received in the past, regarding my An Idea as lacking the rigors of mathematics and not serving as a predictive model.

math·e·mat·ics (mth-mtks) KEY

NOUN:
(used with a sing. verb)
The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols. I submit my An Idea uses symbols and sets to discuss the relationships and interactions among dynamic sets. ( What is the formula for a Venn Diagram or Borromean rings )

My An Idea is also predictive. It predicts the electron is a field projected by a proton. It also predicts that gluons are not separate entities, but are the domains the quarks created.

Needless to say I await evidence, observations and confirmation of those predictions.

So I submit the above in defense of my An Idea.

Very best to all,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Again you mention matter. DOES SPACE MOVE? If so don't you need Time, Space and Motion?

I am glad you are asking this question of Max, Pat, because space does not move, it simply is. It is like the stage to a play, the action taking place within the space. Matter moves; and it uses a trajectory that can be expressed in space and time. Space as the mere background is also the conclusion of K.C. Cole's book 'The Hole in the Universe,' that places everything inside a stage of nothing.

My model represents the gluons as those 8 areas that are formed when the 3 quarks are bound to each other, not because of glouns but rather because of superposing and interweaving ( entanglement ) of them.

I see that, Pat, but the essence in the delivery is formed by the 3 quarks (2 + 1), so the focus should be on the quarks, because they represent both the essence and further formulate the results. Do you distinguish differences in behavior between the up quark and down quark other than them being opposites, attracting and repelling one another? How do you formulate their origin, their state of being, their roles?

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

Thanks for your response. I guess I view space moving. Either dynamically as in inner space of the particle, or more slowly as in the outer space.

Cosmic inflation is justified because they say the space is moving faster than light, not matter. And so it's believed that space is moving.

But you need a particle to have space I guess. The space within the quark, proton, atom, cell, human, earth, universe. At the universal level all space is inner space. It's the dynamics of the inner space which is important. I guess once you have 3 dimensional space you have a 3 dimensional quanta particle of length, width, and heigth.

I want to address the second part of your post and I will shortly after a little thought. Thanks for the question.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

" I see that, Pat, but the essence in the delivery is formed by the 3 quarks (2 + 1), so the focus should be on the quarks, because they represent both the essence and further formulate the results. Do you distinguish differences in behavior between the up quark and down quark other than them being opposites, attracting and repelling one another? How do you formulate their origin, See below their state of being, Dynamic interactions of opposites their roles? Building blocks to our visible reality

Hi again Fredrick;

With the big bang came time, space, motion, and some fundamental substance. The most fundamental would be a Planck Length String. Point particles are nondimensional and therefore are not of real substance. They are conceptual and virtual. That leaves the next fundamental unit the line or string.

Given that the string is real each string would have it's own built in pole of positive and negative. ( -S - N + )
Since opposites attract strings would be inclined to attach themselves to other strings or enfold and enclose itself.( Now becoming a membrane or a quark). The energy would now be in the form of angular momentum, which in itself creates polarity.

THIS IS QED.

IMAGE TAO

The next stage is combinning 3 quarks. The only distinction I make of the quarks is Red, Green or Blue, which matches the descriptive color charge.
I have the 3 quarks permanently combinning by superposing and interweaving ( entangling ) them. Such that the structure is similiar to my avatar.

THIS IS QCD

IMAGE MY VENN DIAGRAM

I guess the color charge is very dynamic, 10 to the 24th power charges per second. So my guess is that this dynamic random action of opposites would create a virtual shell we call the proton.
The reason why the proton appears to be eternal is that those three interlocked quarks aren't opening up.

Best,

Pat

P.S. Please see the pdf file at post 1 of this thread for further information regarding my An Idea

[Max™]

You cannot describe space as a static background and find a way to a ToE.

That would be a background dependent theory, and we know reality is background independent.

Yes, spacetime moves, it is/has a variable structure.


The problem with Quantum Mechanics and String Theory is that it is currently only formulated as a background dependent theory, which implies an absolute frame of reference in case you don't see the problem there.

We can tell from Relativity that, if nothing else, the Universe cannot be fully described by anything but a background independent theory.

[G_burnett]

You cannot describe space as a static background and find a way to a ToE.

That would be a background dependent theory, and we know reality is background independent.

Yes, spacetime moves, it is/has a variable structure.


The problem with Quantum Mechanics and String Theory is that it is currently only formulated as a background dependent theory, which implies an absolute frame of reference in case you don't see the problem there.

We can tell from Relativity that, if nothing else, the Universe cannot be fully described by anything but a background independent theory.

..ah... oh, oh... now you did it, i can almost see the hairs being pulled out there heads in "oh oh i forgot about that .. " ))))

good post Max, i could not pin it down that simple. ..

kind regards ~ g

[Max™]

Ty ty, I knew I was forgetting something, but didn't realize it until I caught the statement that "space is just a stage".

I always operate under a few assumptions, that spacetime is dynamic, that the universe is background independent, that any theory should both explain the form and behavior of matter/energy, and it should create a dynamic spacetime background.

Didn't occur to me that perhaps the source of this argument was a lack of reverence for background independence.