Tumbling Tornadoes (2)

[Banner of Everything]

Spacdout,
I can't make any comment on your question until I get the chance to look at your 'Concept for a Universal Ether' in detail.
I would like to point out, however, that in a geometrical interpretation of spin, a half-spin relates to the degree of twist/charge. Whilst the spin associated with a full charge is one half or 180 degrees, the spin for a fractional charge will be half of that charge, 1/6 or 2/6 for charges of 1/3 and 2/3 respectively. This interpretation means that fractional spins can be added to give the total spin for a composite particle, unlike the present convention.
So a proton has three spin components, adding up to +1/2.
'Banner'

[Banner of Everything]

BLACK HOLES

The foregoing description of tumbling tornadoes provides a plausible explanation of how the common basic 'particles' can exist as an inseperable part of the fabric of space and time without the need for any singularity. Can any of this be applied to the notorious singularity at the heart of a black hole?

Black holes arise as a consequence of general relativity. Large masses bend space ant time around themselves, an idea which is commonly represented by a depression in a stretched rubber membrane model. Enormous concentrations of mass can deepen this depression into a theoretically bottomless pit. Once matter or energy, including light, passes a threshold known as the event horizon, it cannot escape and is drawn inexorably downwards. Thus the phenomenon appears black to the outside world.

Astronomers detect these black holes by their effect on surrounding luminous matter. For example. stars close to the centre of our own galaxy orbit very fast around an unseen highly compacted massive object. Anything that gets too close will spiral inwards past the event horizon.

If a black hole is rotating about an axis, a problem arises. A pair of parallel lines through space, one either side of the axis, woulkd tend to twist around each other and soon become braided as in the attached illustration.

A simple but not wholly satisfactory way around this is to say that the centre of the black hole is decoupled from the rest of space, that is, separate from the space-time continuum.

Otherwise, the braided effect has to dissipate over a great distance or meet up with a twist in the opposite direction produced by another massive rapidly rotating object. This curling up of space on an axis of rotation is parelled by the idea of frame dragging and gravito-magnetic poles.

[Banner of Everything]

BLACK HOLES continued

The principle of a spherically rotating field, as descibed in the Tumbling Tornadoes section, is an alternative approach to the way in which a black hole can spin around.

This time, instead of a single spinning loop, each line through any part of a black hole is likely to encounter a large number of the densely packed particles within it. Each of these particles will be a smaller tumbling tornado so that the line through space follows a convoluted path which is many times longer than the diameter of the event horizon as viewed from the outside. The nested pattern of spherically rotating loops will continue down to the smallest of scales. Please see the attached diagram.

Now imagine a particle such as a neutrino falling into a black hole and travelling along one of these convoluted paths. I don't know how opinionated neutrinos are but this one would swear that it was travelling in a straight line, without feeling any forces acting on it, no matter how strange the surrounding events were. The time and distance it travelled would be extremely long and drawn out, but finite. Even if the particle managed to avoid fateful collisions with other particles, it might find that the black hole had absorbed more matter, causing it to expand, leaving the poor neutrino trapped within.

What appears to be a short trip across a relatively small region of space would seem to be an eternity to an outside observer.

[Banner of Everything]

BLACK HOLES continued

The central loop in the nested model of a black hole would have to be much larger than the ones proposed for fundamental particles. An educated guess, based on an extrapolation of the Williamson and Van der Mark model of the electron, is that it would be related to the de Broglie wavelength of whatever object is being studied.

Again, there would be a lacuna around the centre of mass of mass of the black hole but no matter or energy at that point. This circumvents the problem of an near infinite density if it is assumed that the density keeps on increasing up to the central point.

An intreaguing parallel between the tumbling tornado models of the black hole and the electron is that the former should have a charge of +1 or -1. The electrical force involved would be trivial in comparison with the gravitational forces in the same way that gravity is trivial compared to the electrical forces at the quantum scale.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to extend the tumbling tornado model to deal with the apparent singularity at the heart of a black hole so that the continuity of space is preserved. The model is consistent with observations and with Einstein's theory of relativity.

FEEDBACK

I am eager to read any constructive comments on the story so far and to clarify anything which I have not explained well enough. So please feel free to share your own reactions.

[Banner of Everything]

BIG BANG??
Summary to date

So far, this thread has proposed an extension of relativity where space is able to distort in different modes other than a radial tension or compression. Folowing on from the idea that charge is twist and twist is charge, I have examined the particular mechanism of a dynamically twisting and turning if space itself, forming a stable self-sustaining structure which I have called a tumbling tornado.

This phenomenon provides an alternative picture of singularities such as black holes and point-particles which is consitent with experimental observations. But can it be applied to the greatest singularity of them all - the Big Bang? This is a more tentative idea, pushing the tumbling tornado model to its upper limit in scale and beyond currently known testing methods.

[Banner of Everything]

BIG BANG??

Or a cyclic universe?

The phenomenon of resonance is readily observable on all scales of matter throughout the universe. Everything from galaxies to sub-atomic particles rotate or vibrate in some fashion or other. Sperical rotation is just one of these modes of resonance. If the principle is extended to the universe itself, an important question arises: relative to what is it supposed to be moving?

If the universe is finite and self-contained there is no possible background against which it might be measured. If on the other hand, the known universe is merely what we can observe out of a greater cosmos stretching out infinitely, it could be expanding, twisting or turning relative to what lies beyond the observable horizon. In such a case the overall behaviour of the known universe would be determined by the tensions and torsions in the space beyond it. Similarly, our universe will affect what happens on the larger scale. Please note that this would be a meta-universe obeying the same laws of physics rather than a meta-physical one on some different plane of existence.

The idea of a cyclic or pulsating universe has gone out of fashion in favour of the Big Bang theory but has never quite gone away. The Big Bang theory itself runs into problems when it gets close to a point of origin. Its density approaches the infinite and its expansion rate has to be greater than the speed of light. If the whole cosmos is resonating with waves of compression and rerefaction travelling in all directions, our part of it could currently be in a rarefaction phase, causing it to expand. As the wave passes in so many trillion years, it will be replaced by a compression phase and our corner of the cosmos would collapse in on itself. There need not be a collapse to a single point but there would be a minimum level from which a new expansion phase would start. What we call 'dark energy' could be the result of the natural resilience of space itself.

The first thumbnail attachment is a graph whose 'x' and 'y' axes are labelled 't' for time and 'd' for diameter of the observable universe, respectively. The point 'P' represents the present day state of affairs.

The blue box region of the graph is enlarged in the second thumbnail. The black line represents what we can measure about the past development of our universe. The line has a slight upwards curve to it because the rate of expansion is seen to be increasing.

The red line indicates the orthodox standpoint. If the black line is projected upwards at an increasing gradient, the universe will expand forever, becoming increasingly colder and less dense. Projecting the line downwards, it meets the x-axis at a point representing the big bang.

But this black line can also be projected along the green lines in either direction. If space is resilient and resonating, there will be a brake on the upward expansion and downward compression so that the diameter of the universe will eventually swing back towards its average value along the neutral axis of the sine wave.

[Banner of Everything]

Attached thumbnails

[Banner of Everything]

BIG BANG??

There are of course other possible interpretations, including an expansion curve which is asymptotic to the x-axis, never quite going back to a single point.

Now, imagine space uncoiling from a state of compacted spherical rotation. The stored energy in the system provides the power for a kinetic expansion which would be the same in all directions. So we see space rushing away from us at the same speed wherever we look and wherever our starting point. The uncoiling would eventually run out of steam, stop, then start rewinding in the opposite direction. The energy in the system would wind up the universe into a tight ball before restarting the cycle.

An alternative view would be to view our universe as being paired with one spinning in the opposite direction.

With any unwinding model, nearby stars ought to show an angular movement relative to distant galaxies but unfortunately, science does not currently offer a way of detecting it. The Doppler effect (red/blue shift in visible light) does not work for objects moving from side to side across the field of vision.

The existence of a cosmic background radiation is usually taken as an indication that the universe was once very compact indeed but it does not prove conclusively that it expanded from a single point. Even if the orthodox explanation is accepted, it only tells us about the state of the universe when it became transparent to light.

In a resonating universe, the total amount of energy is always the same. There is no need for an absolute starting point for its creation out of nothing. Nor is there any need for dark energy. Another advantage of a much older universe is that galaxies can be much older too, accounting for the fact that there is little observable difference between them and the youngest ones.

[Banner of Everything]

MATHEMATICS (BUT WITHOUT THE EQUATIONS)

The tumbling tornado is a topological model based on a three dimensional phenomenon spinning through time.

It should be possible to describe it in algebraic terms but as far as I am aware, no such description exists yet. The mathematical principle of curl is used to describe the strength of force fields around an axis but the tumbling tornado's axis is itself turning over and returning to its original orientation every 720 degrees (two turns). An algebraic description would also have to show the field strength decreasing with the inverse square of the distance from the centre.

But as we get closer to the centre of the tumbling tornado, it spins increasingly faster until it reaches the limit of speed of light. This should determine a minimum diameter for the whole configuration producing the eye of the storm.

When one eye of a meets another, a different mechanism comes into play, locking particles into a new stable configuration such as an atomic nucleus. I still have to try and work out how this might happen but my knowledge of advanced mathematics ran out several paragraphs ago.

The tumbling tornado model can be used solely as an image of what is happening on the smallest of scales, leaving established quantum mechanics to describe what happens beyond it. Alternately, the forces surrounding it can be seen to stretch out towards infinity on an inverse square basis and to interact with other tumbling tornadoes. But the motions of charged particles are not easy to predict. In a gravitational system of more than two uncharged objects, their motions become chaotic and unpredictable. The equivalent calculations with more than two charged particles would not be any simpler.

It would be too much to hope that the algebraic formulae would parellel the established ones for quantum mechanics but it may well work out that some of the key observed effects can be modelled in a more comprehensible fashion.

If anyone knows how to model this phenomenon in an algebraic way, please let me know.