An Idea

[Profpat]

Grand children are soooo much easier. They're actually enjoyable. There is something nice about holding a purely innocent and trusting baby in your arms. It may not be a T.O.E. but it just maybe the meaning to life.

[dipayankar]

Great Prof. How are things otherwise?

I now have two grandsons.

[Profpat]

Great Prof. How are things otherwise?

Pretty good here Dipayankar, how are things on your side of the world?

My creative juices appear to be a bit dry now, regarding my An Idea.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

I was pondering the beginning and ending of our universe, which started me thinking regarding spatial dimension expansion and contraction. In math we are aware of the dimensionless point, which if stretched becomes a 1 dimensional line , (Distance ). If that line is stretched perpendicular it becomes a 2 dimensional area ( Square or Circle). Again stretched and it becomes a 3 dimensional volume (Cube/Sphere). And one final stretching and it becomes a 4th dimensional hyper volume ( Hypercube/Sphere).

The physicists theorize that this occurs in reverse in star collapse. A star dense enough becomes a Neutron Star. The 4th dimensional electron collapses into the proton, losing its dimension of time, no longer hyper volume. Now the proton, which really is a hydrogen atom, becomes a neutron. No longer is it a shell within a shell, now it’s just the single shell.
Scientist also theorizes and predicts a quark star, if the original star was dense enough. Essentially now even the shell of the neutron is collapsing down to quarks, which I believe to be a 2 dimensional entity.
Finally we get to the ultimate collapse to a black hole. Here we get back to singularity. Everything has collapsed and we are back to our 1 dimensional line.

Now, when the big bang occurred, we started with our dimensionless point. That I believe is when that point spewed out 1 dimensional vibrating energetic strings. This would be like radiation, but not since it is 1 dimensional. Its main principle is the opposite of gravity it wants to expand. And expand it does. This to me is the dark energy which controls the expansion of the universe.
Now some strings can close themselves, and when that happens there is the emergence of a 2 dimensional reality called the quark. Quarks have area and density. They have a center of gravity and mass. This to me is the dark matter which holds our galaxies together.
Quarks can attach themselves into 2’s and 3’s. The 3 quarks being the base for our visible 3 dimensional universe. We now have volume.
Again it’s my belief the proton projects the electron, creating the hyper sphere, of a shell ( the nucleus ) within a shell ( the electron orbital shells ).

I also believe all of this will collapse into the cyclic model of the universe when enough strings close to form gravitational entities.

YOUR THOUGHTS PLEASE.

[dipayankar]

You are right, what I leave to debate is whether strings will trigger the gravitational collapse.

I was pondering the beginning and ending of our universe, which started me thinking regarding spatial dimension expansion and contraction. In math we are aware of the dimensionless point, which if stretched becomes a 1 dimensional line , (Distance ). If that line is stretched perpendicular it becomes a 2 dimensional area ( Square or Circle). Again stretched and it becomes a 3 dimensional volume (Cube/Sphere). And one final stretching and it becomes a 4th dimensional hyper volume ( Hypercube/Sphere).

The physicists theorize that this occurs in reverse in star collapse. A star dense enough becomes a Neutron Star. The 4th dimensional electron collapses into the proton, losing its dimension of time, no longer hyper volume. Now the proton, which really is a hydrogen atom, becomes a neutron. No longer is it a shell within a shell, now it’s just the single shell.
Scientist also theorizes and predicts a quark star, if the original star was dense enough. Essentially now even the shell of the neutron is collapsing down to quarks, which I believe to be a 2 dimensional entity.
Finally we get to the ultimate collapse to a black hole. Here we get back to singularity. Everything has collapsed and we are back to our 1 dimensional line.

Now, when the big bang occurred, we started with our dimensionless point. That I believe is when that point spewed out 1 dimensional vibrating energetic strings. This would be like radiation, but not since it is 1 dimensional. Its main principle is the opposite of gravity it wants to expand. And expand it does. This to me is the dark energy which controls the expansion of the universe.
Now some strings can close themselves, and when that happens there is the emergence of a 2 dimensional reality called the quark. Quarks have area and density. They have a center of gravity and mass. This to me is the dark matter which holds our galaxies together.
Quarks can attach themselves into 2’s and 3’s. The 3 quarks being the base for our visible 3 dimensional universe. We now have volume.
Again it’s my belief the proton projects the electron, creating the hyper sphere, of a shell ( the nucleus ) within a shell ( the electron orbital shells ).

I also believe all of this will collapse into the cyclic model of the universe when enough strings close to form gravitational entities.

YOUR THOUGHTS PLEASE.

[Profpat]

I believe it will Dipayankar;

It makes sense to me now, an expansion ( The Big Bang ) and the contraction ( The Big Crunch ). The yoga's breathing exercise, the mothers birthing mechanism.
Yes, I think the strings will emerge to provide the necessary gravity to collapse the universe, into OBLIVION, only to be reborn anew.

[Profpat]

I saw this on the internet and thought I would share it with you:

[Fredrick]

First, congratulations, Pat. I do think you know now what the ToE is all about with having grandchildren. It is like having had kids first, and then getting to do it all over again from a different position. I heard that children growing up with at least one grandparent tend to do better in life!

Second, my apologies for not staying in touch much. My work and personal life have pushed me away from this site, but I will read up and post here when I can.

Well, Max, I thank you sincerely for your reply to a post of quite some time ago. You were the only one, as far I was able to read in the next forty replies after the post, commenting on my observation that the bending of light occurred not because of gravity, but because of photon interaction.

Unfortunately, your counterarguments appear to not really address the issue.

If light was pushed out like you suggest, we wouldn't see the sun.

Max, my apologies. This remark tells me you didn't understand my information; I must not have written it down well enough.

Light is bosonic, it doesn't interfere like you're suggesting, it plays nicely.

We probably agree that with light being bosonic the information I provide must then indeed follow the bosonic rules. And they do; the photons and the interactions I describe are all following the bosonic rules.

Basically, the bosonic nature of light is not the issue. The real question is how photons behave in an environment of other photons that are coming from a different object. This also shows why your first remark does not fit: there is only one major source for the photons we see from the sun; there is no tremendously-interacting second source of photons that could alter the path of the sun's photons altogether in any noticeable way.

We also know that a single photon is never eliminated when bumping into a million other photons. The question is How can its path not be altered by these photons moving collectively in a different direction by the millions?

The drawing you gave is nothing like the one I showed, if it worked that way, the Eclipse observations would not work, they would have showed a weird reversed effect from that expected by Einstein.

I am sorry, Max, I must be a bad writer and my image must be of low quality. And I thought they were quite clear.

Still, Einstein may somewhat be in question here indeed if photons are all behaving normally according to classical mechanics. It doesn't mean Einstein got it all wrong, but it would place the photons' behavior in that category of what is already explainable through the rules of classical mechanics.

Remember, these photons would normally have whizzed off past us, but got deflected inwards towards the massive object, and into our path.

That is exactly what I am saying, too. Isn't that funny? You see the two faces and I see the vase — or you see the cube where I see the inside of the room. The same information interpreted in two different ways.

Please, Max — and others — take another look at the information and contemplate it some more. Let me know where I should improve my language, and where I can make the image clearer.

The real issue is: What happens to a photon from source A when it goes through a gale wind of photons from source B? I would be interested to hear from any of you what your ideas are about the possible results for that single photon.

Since it was a long time ago, here is a repeat of the post:

It isn't that the quanta are bent, to a beam of light it is following a straight line.

The very definition of a straight line is different in a region of curved spacetime, and it isn't an outward bend, it is inwards.

Perfect illustration here:

It appears that a source which actually lies perhaps a few degrees to your right, is shifted to lie several more degrees to the right, if you assumed the light from it was taking a straight path towards you.

The Eddington observations in 1919 were just the start of a long series of measurements of the effect.

Lately there are radio wave observations which confirm that the effect is within 0.999992 +/- 0.0000023 of the amount predicted by GR.

I am not doubting the observed information, Max. I am only doubting the conclusion made based on the observed information. As you can see in the drawing below, the exact same result can already be found with a distant photon having to go through a field of squazillion photons coming from the massive object between the distant star and ourselves.

The main argument about quanta is that in the world of light quanta, the other quanta are their equals. Whether we appoint a mass of zero to them or not is totally unimportant for the photons. They live in their own world and must deal with the circumstances that belong to their framework of the universe.



As soon as a distant photon coming into our direction bumps into a photon from the massive object in between, it is ever so lightly pushed to the side. Multiply by squazillion, and the photon's path is still moving in the same direction, but now more to the side (from our perspective). The closer the path near the massive object, the larger the sideway push. The more massive the object, the more sideway movement per distant photon, and also the larger a capturing basin it has (larger field of directional photons, capturing more distant photons and pushing the distant photons sideways in bigger ways).

Equality is a very important aspect in the universe because that is where interesting balances can occur. A photon interacting with another photon would be of a magnitude so small and occurring at such high speeds, we'd probably not be able to observe it, except at great distances in large numbers (see image below). And with the argument that it takes a diamond to cut a diamond, I can state quite confidently that at the photon level the other photons are truly there and do matter (even when they have a matter of zero); the single photon from a distant origin has to go through the directional field of photon bombardment of the massive object(s).


http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2008/...gc2218_hst.jpg
http://image03.webshots.com/3/1/1/15...GoWUkFO_ph.jpg

I am interested to hear about light that was bent, and which we observed, such as from cluster Abell 2218 in the Hubble image above. We are taught to believe the bending of the light occurred because of gravity. Yet the information is more easily explained through the solar winds (and storms up close) coming from the particular massive object(s); we view the extra-light spots because it is there where the photons were collected/ended up due to this environment.

Again, and most importantly, we can only see those photons coming our way. None of the squazillion photons from the massive objects can be seen, except for those that are coming our way.

Sorry, the black hole story is not on my list of interest here, guys. In that obscure case, the light was distorted and if I am correct vanished from sight. If you read my posts, you know I consider black holes of close to zero gravitational reality; just the center of the spin, which is quite the environment, but not something I want to discuss here and now in light of light. I'd like to discuss just those examples that show light having followed a non-linear path somewhere before reaching earth or our instruments.

[dipayankar]

For gravity, string will require mass. How will that mass come Prof? Does strings have mass?

I believe it will Dipayankar;

It makes sense to me now, an expansion ( The Big Bang ) and the contraction ( The Big Crunch ). The yoga's breathing exercise, the mothers birthing mechanism.
Yes, I think the strings will emerge to provide the necessary gravity to collapse the universe, into OBLIVION, only to be reborn anew.

[Profpat]

For gravity, string will require mass. How will that mass come Prof? Does strings have mass?

Good question. Most of the mass of the proton/neutron doesn't come from the mass of the 3 quarks but rather from the interaction of those 3 quarks. I believe the same is true for quarks and strings, i.e. most of the mass of the quark doesn't come from the string but in the interaction of the vibrating localized field the closed string creates. ~ open no field, O closed field created.

P.S. Welcome back Fredrick