Simply Relativity v2

[Max™]

Simply Relativity v3
The Signature of the Gardener
Copyright © Max Morriss 2008

Abstract

I noted what seemed to be an odd choice in Einstein’s Gravitational Red
Shift equations, one concerning the rate of time at infinite distance from a body of
mass. While considering various locations for the rate of time = 1 point, I decided
to try the Planck Mass, where traditional relativity breaks down.

Hypothesis

Quantum Effects emerge from a simple tweak in a rate of time constant in
General Relativity.



Interesting, but what does it mean? Let’s assume that when Einstein was
locating the rate of time constant in gravitational red shift equations, he didn’t
consider what it would imply if that mass/time ratio was adjusted. As you leave
the high time dilation side of the graph and cross the classic realm we live in. You
are left with new interactions to describe.

That picture was an early attempt and it doesn’t explain my next
idea as well. Let’s try a new one.



Here you see a simpler description of the trend and the implications
become a little clearer. No need to suggest a variable speed of light (though I
won’t rule out possible variations in it, as my intuition suggests small variations
may not be undesireable), new unseen particles and fields, or arbitrary numbers
of dimensions. I just adjusted a known to be arbitrarily placed constant, and
found quantum mechanics hiding in General Relativity.

The parts of this graph below the Mp (planck mass) line would all be
particles with greater interaction with time than is classically observed. This
sounds strange and acausal at first, but if a particle is influencing it’s future state
from the present already. You don’t get strange paradoxical situations if the scale
of time interaction is tied appropriately to the mass of the body in question.

You get something that behaves like Quantum Mechanics! Particles
interfering with their own future position describing interference waves, focusing
in on one aspect of a particle too finely causing the other aspects to become
uncertain, and all the other weirdness that comes along with the small scale
interaction of matter.

It took some coaxing to get it out, and still is, but I am still awed at how
simply it all falls together. The most interesting part of this is, the form of quantum
mechanics I have found, is essentially a semi-Bohmian Model. The adjustment
I’m working on is to treat the equations as a representation of the particles near
past/present/future state… not some spatially spread probability cloud. Just a
particles increased interaction timewise with itself, and the surroundings. I’m
devoting more time to finding an appropriate form for these equations. The time
interaction wasn’t the only amazing relation I found, though. I found an interesting
consequence while considering the ramifications of this extended temporal
quantum mechanics, and the nature of light.

[Max™]

It hit me to discard the particle formulation for matter entirely, and to treat
matter as nothing but folded distance! It is an odd concept to work around.
Perhaps it’s as simple as a folding over of the disturbed coordinates onto their
neighbors. Not an adjustment of some energy field, or some point particle
translation, just folded up distance.

This thought took form while trying to
describe some of these ideas to a friend with little knowledge of physics, so I’ll
use the form I did with him for a simple example.

Take a really simple coordinate setup.

s=[x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x]

Moving past the outer brackets is one interval of distance, don’t need to be
specific to get the idea across.

Now let's drop a body of mass in there.

s’=[x] [2x] [x][x][x][x][x][x][x]

Now the 1 > 4 space covers one fewer interval, since the [2x] set incorporates
two intervals worth of coordinates. Add a larger body. Then let time run over the
coordinate sets, ignoring the fractional changes for simplicity.

s”t¹=[x] [2x] [x][x][x] [4x]
s”t²=[x][x] [2x][x][x] [4x]
s”t³=[x][x][x] [2x][4x] [x]

Since the 4 coordinate body distorts local coordinates more, it adjusts the
location of the 2 coordinate body more than its own position is adjusted. The
interaction corresponds to the Einstein field equations/Newtonian gravity as the
two bodies seek to reach a state with minimal distortion to local coordinates.
Coming into contact and assuming a spherical shape satisfies this.

The description of folded spatial coordinates implies gravity simply, how
could one extend that to other forces? It seems to me that this concept should be
extended to incorporate different topological aspects of spatial knots.

The orientation induced by the loop overlaps would correspond to
electromagnetic interactions. The varying amount of loops oriented in the
different ways would determine overall charge. As it would be a highly directional
stress, beyond the general stretching of local spatial coordinates, it would very
simply describe the long range and relative strength of EM fields compared to
gravity.

The tendency of the knots to untie themselves, and the inherent
handedness involved in the shape of the knots would correspond to the Weak
interaction, chiral violations and nuclear decay. The stressed nature of the ties
from loop to loop naturally describes quark confinement and strong force
interactions.

Applying the EM charge rule to the directions of overlapping loops, you
quickly notice a few forms are “smooth”. The Neutron identifies itself here,
because you can’t form a smooth three lobed knot that isn’t essentially identical
to a proton. The most interesting part of this line of thought was that it suggested
an even more stable “knot” than the Proton, one which did not possess the
correctly oriented number of “loops” required to be electromagnetically
interactive.

Since there is no particle corresponding to this, I decided this should be
predicting dark matter, massive, stable, non-interactive except through gravity.

So I make my first testable prediction: The LHC will not find a Higgs particle,
rather it will discover a sign of a dark matter particle, which I am tentatively
calling the Photino. I believe this particle will be a tetraquark, đuūd, with a mass
of roughly 1.25 GeV, 0 Charge (1/3, 2/3, -2/3, -1/3), 0 Spin (-½, ½, ½, -½),
fulfilling the role of dark matter very well.

I’ve begun considering how the observed, and currently unexplained
asymmetry between matter and anti-matter could be resolved. If the photino is
found to exist, and found to be composed of the dual quark/anti-quark pairs I
described above. This would get around trying to explain why all of the matter
and anti-matter produced in the early universe didn’t annihilate equally. Instead
the simple resolution would be that quark/anti-quark pairs would pair up with sets
of opposing charge. Neutralizing the parity problem entirely, by stating that the
anti-matter didn’t get annihilated unevenly, it is still here. Locked up in the stable
and non-interactive form of dark matter!



As I was considering what effect the age of the universe should have on
the vacuum energy density, I found that there was a similar relation proposed in
[1]. The difference I suggest is that the cosmological constant, and therefore the
vacuum energy density would change in relation to the age of the universe. As
the energy density decreases, spacetime stretches further and further. Grows
thin and eventually, when the interaction between time and distance could slide
no further along the scale, it would sigh into non-existence. Much like the
proposal of Sakharov[2], as I found out after investigating the Zero-Point-Field.

Under the current big bang model, at a very short time after the birth of the
universe, such as the Planck time, the universe would have been on the order of
the Planck length. Any particles that existed could only have interacted with an
incredibly short period of time. So they would have equivalently been interacting
with incredibly large distances. Since the entire universe wasn’t capable of
having large distances to interact with yet. The only way to resolve this while
maintaining the distance/time relationship I’ve proposed, is introducing bodies
with significant amounts of folded distance. Proportional to the Planck time, these
folded distances would be enormous. Correspondingly, this is equivalent to
traditional descriptions having an incredibly dense body of mass at the beginning
of the universe.

However, while using one of my favorite theoretical tools, attempting to
explain things to laymen, I had a very interesting thought that the nature of the
relationships I’ve proposed was suggesting all along. I was using the old rubber
sheet analogy while explaining black holes, and the similarity it had to his idea
that the universe will turn and contract towards a big crunch eventually. I pointed
out that he was describing the same idea I was in a way, only instead of the
entire universe being turned back and crumpled up by an unknown “fist”, the
formation of black holes would be the crunch he was looking for. Then it hit me
like a shock.

Why do we describe the universe as unfolding from an arbitrarily small point?

Just because you can attempt to run the big bang back to zero distance
doesn’t mean you have too. Current attempts to avoid singularities, even one I
considered, involve a rebound of some sort around the Planck length. Working
from the rubber sheet analogy, when you crumple a piece of it up, you can
describe concepts of mass, space, particles, all of that. When you roll and fold
and crumple the entire sheet up, try as you might, you’re not going to be able to
compress it past a certain point.

None of our current ideas properly explain the inside of a black hole in
relation to our universe. The recent realization that the mass of a black hole
corresponds to the area and not volume was very interesting to me in particular.
I’m not sure why, but it suggested to me that the event horizon was just an edge
in space. A hole cut out of the universe. I never found the idea that the mass
inside the event horizon gets compressed to an arbitrary point very satisfactory. It
just said to me that we can’t model the inside using the laws in our universe
anymore.

So, what if we don’t assume that the interior is arbitrarily compressed into
a singularity, but instead the nature of the collapse causes a sort of phase
change in the mass/folded space within the event horizon. It isn’t hard to imagine
that it would stress the space to be so tightly folded. Perhaps this could enable a
shuffling of some of the constants from our universe, keeping it similar, but
enabling ideas such as Smolins evolutionary cosmology to flourish naturally. I
began to think about the implications this has for our Universe. Instead of
applying some non-local way for the daughter universes to unfold while their
black holes still exist within another universe, you just wait for time to run down,
space to lose meaning, and the mother universe to disperse. Releasing her
daughters in all their numbers and variations to unfold. Contrary to Hawking, I do
not expect black holes to radiate, or evaporate, but propose that they cheat
entropy. Moving it from one universe, to it’s daughters.

The specific adjustment to the current models would be a big bang that
started not with a pointlike object of absurd density, but rather a black hole sized
body of folded space. I am going to have to see if there is some way to determine
a relationship between the size of black hole existing within a prior universe, and
the mass of the resulting universe after unfurling.

Equations

These are still under construction, as the formal outline of the theory has
only recently been realized.

After consideration, but while still working out the exact relationships, I’ve
decided to place the Rate of Time = 1 point at the Planck Mass. As it is the point
at which Quantum Gravity should take over, that seems a better classical to
quantum boundary than my initial somewhat arbitrary choice of the proton mass.

tf=(Mp – Ev) (c (v/c))
E=(d/T)c²

tf =Time Interaction Function
Mp = Planck Mass
E = Energy of the chosen system
AU = Age of the Universe
AU+tf =T: Total time interacted with

The other values are simple enough, distance of folded space composing
the particle, velocity, and c is as always: light speed.

[Max™]

References

Scott Funkhouser: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0611/0611115.pdf
Andrei Sakharov: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakharov_induced_gravity

Thank you,
Everyone who has sat and listened to me ramble on about these
concepts, though it may have seemed like I was only trying to help you
understand them, you were also helping me understand them.

I finally got it worded in a way that satisfied me, and while there is still much to do, I'm pretty pleased with the way it has turned out.

[Max™]

Imagine you are a boat in a river.

Your mass determines the rate you move downstream.

If you wish to change your position in the river, you change the rate you move downstream.


Quantum Mechanics describes particles which the boat is made of in such a way that if you took one of them, it would not be located at a single point in the river.

Rather it would be spread perpendicularly to the motion downstream.

The actual position would be a possible value along that spread across the river.

The problem is, when you attempt to determine where the particle is, or how it interacts with others, you need to consider all of those possible values, and how they interact not only with other particles.

You have to consider their interaction with themselves.


So then you calculate that, and produce a new interaction, which interacts with the possible values, and needs to be calculated.


This never stops, it just keeps spreading unless you arbitrarily say "ok, let's calculate it as if particles don't interact more than 1 foot to either side, calculate the inverse of those interactions, and then apply those to negative infinity, and balance all of this out."


The way I'm describing quantum effects, a particle interacts with itself and other particles in the direction the river flows.

Where we say the point we're at is "now".

A quantum particle says that point, and the near points ahead and behind us, is "now".

We interact with other objects the same mass as us in a way which only needs to know our "now" point.

A quantum particle interacts with other quantum particles in a way which requires a knowledge of it's extended "now".


This doesn't produce the infinite "well then how does the interaction interact with the interaction of the interactions interaction?" problems, because a particles mass naturally determines how far forwards and backwards in time that their "now" extends.

[Max™]

http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=976477&da=y

Since this version seems to get the central concept across better, I'll put it here in the hopes that it will make more sense of the rest.

[Max™]

Cleaned up some odd grammar and adjusted the format a bit.

"On the Temporal Interaction of Quantum Bodies"

[Max™]

Electrons are jump ropes in time!

[G_burnett]

I did not realize you were posting here and will go through the postulations for more mental clarity of your platform and will try to reply without sounding too foolish later.

kind regards g.

[Max™]

Ah, thanks for suffering through my rambling if you get around to it, didn't even see a reply.

Yeah, I ramble a bit too much here though, its all too freeform. Makes sense in my head, will need to re-phrase it for other readers though.

[G_burnett]

I have observed gravity and wondered in ponder of the quantile Planck begin ....on the platform of push in effect

It has to be up on the scalier projection to where other mass is able to effect with motive force behind the second mass and talking mass or matter it is way up there ...

the motive force would seem to be describable in many form which goes back to the Planck dimension again,

so what would be the constant value of the state where we can say there is gravity effect at that moment? (proximity expected)

Is there one for gravity on the view of a pull in event not explainable by attraction forces in the MF theory?

kind regards graham