Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #387488 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-09 08:20 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-15 17:06 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 122 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-09 08:20 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 18:02 +0200
Re: QM and GR. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-09 16:51 -0700
Re: QM and GR. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-09 17:55 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-10 07:16 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-11 06:04 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 08:25 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-10 10:28 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 08:00 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 17:08 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 08:12 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 08:08 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 13:42 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 12:07 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 14:15 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 12:29 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-14 22:48 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 16:30 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-15 07:03 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:37 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-15 22:56 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 13:02 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-16 22:17 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:47 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-18 07:09 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-17 10:17 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-18 06:56 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Jack Chardy <jackc@outlool.org> - 2016-07-11 15:27 +0000
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-16 15:31 +1000
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-16 12:15 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-18 15:01 +1000
Re: QM and GR. Greg Buttler <grgb@novotnysite.org> - 2016-07-22 16:09 +0000
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-25 12:21 +1000
Re: QM and GR. Tsvetana Kasatkina <tzve@noemail.info> - 2016-07-29 20:23 +0000
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-22 22:39 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-23 08:14 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 10:43 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-23 12:33 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-23 22:41 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-24 07:12 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-26 09:21 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-27 07:11 +0200
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-23 11:21 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 22:39 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-25 09:12 +0200
Re: QM and GR. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:02 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-25 16:23 +0200
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 12:44 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-25 10:22 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-27 12:15 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-29 13:51 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 16:04 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 11:32 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:19 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 12:35 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:56 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 13:37 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 16:09 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 15:03 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 17:11 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 16:05 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:17 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 12:30 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:11 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 13:36 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 17:02 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-30 08:27 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 12:25 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 13:47 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 14:17 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 17:04 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 18:01 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 19:57 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:04 -0500
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 12:37 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-05 08:37 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 12:40 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-06 14:47 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 13:16 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-08 13:25 -0700
Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 14:16 -0700
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-10 10:52 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-25 16:45 +1000
Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-25 16:46 +1000
Re: QM and GR. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:08 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 12:28 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-25 10:51 -0700
Re: QM and GR. wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2016-07-26 12:11 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-27 12:11 -0500
Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-29 10:20 +0200
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 07:13 -0500
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-08-07 15:36 +0000
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-07 11:16 -0700
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 13:21 -0700
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-08 13:36 -0700
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 12:31 -0500
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-08 06:57 -0500
Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 07:18 +0200
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-08 10:10 -0700
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-08 11:02 -0700
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-08 13:14 -0500
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 22:52 +0200
Re: Nature decides _everything_. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 08:42 +0200
Re: Nature decides _everything_. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:16 -0700
Re: Nature decides _everything_. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:49 -0700
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-09 12:09 -0700
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-09 13:35 -0700
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 23:53 +0200
Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-09 18:17 -0400
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-09 06:51 -0500
Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-09 17:51 -0400
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-02 06:41 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 23:55 -0500
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-03 05:27 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 07:39 -0500
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-05 05:25 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 08:07 -0500
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 07:51 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 15:57 -0500
Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 14:49 -0700
Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 17:30 -0500
Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-15 17:06 -0700
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-09 08:20 -0700 |
| Subject | QM and GR. |
| Message-ID | <e774f48f-83e5-4a00-bb28-5fe21626b4b3@googlegroups.com> |
I really don't see the point in these theories being combined into one. Can anyone explain very simply the point of doing so ? As far as I understand the kinds of predictions made with QM regard something altogether different from gravitation. Maybe I'm wrong ? -y
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-09 18:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nlr76k$haf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #387488 |
Dne 09/07/2016 v 17:20 Y napsal(a): > I really don't see the point in these theories being combined into one. Can anyone explain very simply the point of doing so ? > > As far as I understand the kinds of predictions made with QM regard something altogether different from gravitation. Maybe I'm wrong ? > QM/QED/QFT predictions are incorrect in strong enough gravity. For many scenarios in physics, either QM effects, either GR effects ( or both ) can be neglected. But for some others, neither of them can be neglected, like for very early universe, or black hole radiation. GR cannot describe quantum effects, QM is not GR aware. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-09 16:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a9bdb407-ac5e-4a41-b6a5-e8c9168238db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387489 |
QM is (harmonics , nodes , Anti-nodes , time dilation & Velocity) GR is (Gravity , accelleration, time dilation & space ) .. No (nodes / anti-nodes) in GR. Until space time itself is Quantatized, QM & GR won't unify. It is Necessary to know Geometry of the Aether so the nodes can be aligned to fit GR Pound-Rebka
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-09 17:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <407a71d8-6903-4f5b-8722-2127ba2dddee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387495 |
No Such Thing as a Graviton No such force as Gravity Gravity is simply the alteration of the position of matter in space time Gravity is accelleration
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 07:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <due41fFtg0lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387488 |
Am 09.07.2016 17:20, schrieb Y:
> I really don't see the point in these theories being combined into one. Can anyone explain very simply the point of doing so ?
>
> As far as I understand the kinds of predictions made with QM regard something altogether different from gravitation. Maybe I'm wrong ?
The point is, that QM is based on one single fixed 'axis of time', while
GR is not.
'Strong gravity' is equivalent to 'curved timelines', what QM does not like.
Next difference is, that QM deals with very small items in close
proximity to the observer and GR with very large structures.
QM is mainly about matter (particles and fields), while GR is about
space and time.
To solve the problem I had the idea to make matter 'relative'. So matter
in one FoR is not matter in another (moving in relative motion).
Also time is treated similar to space and we have three orthogonal axis
of time.
Sounds quite counter-intuitive, but works very well (as far as I can tell).
I have written kind of 'book' about it. Actually it was derived from a
collection of posts into the UseNet, where I added additional text and
some illustrations. You find that here:
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
The concept is called 'structured spacetime'. I simply took the
spacetime of GR and 'built' particles out of that.
I assume, that spacetime is real and consists of something similar to a
point, what I call 'elements'. Those twist each other in a special way.
So an atom is actually a 'standing rotation wave'. 'h' is interpreted as
angular momentum and quantisation as caused by the requirement of such
waves to fit together to a 'timelike stable structure' (->matter).
('Triality' is the name of the Dynkins diagram of the rotation-group SO3.)
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 06:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dugk71Fh4d8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387502 |
Am 10.07.2016 07:16, schrieb Thomas Heger: >> I really don't see the point in these theories being combined into >> one. Can anyone explain very simply the point of doing so ? >> >> As far as I understand the kinds of predictions made with QM regard >> something altogether different from gravitation. Maybe I'm wrong ? > > > The point is, that QM is based on one single fixed 'axis of time', while > GR is not. > > 'Strong gravity' is equivalent to 'curved timelines', what QM does not > like. > > Next difference is, that QM deals with very small items in close > proximity to the observer and GR with very large structures. > > QM is mainly about matter (particles and fields), while GR is about > space and time. > > To solve the problem I had the idea to make matter 'relative'. So matter > in one FoR is not matter in another (moving in relative motion). > I try to explain this idea by reinterpretation of the photoelectric effect with a simplified picture. Goes like this: it is based on relativity and a certain diagram, invented by Herman Minkowski. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/World_line.svg/300px-World_line.svg.png There we have a 'light-cone', an axis of time and a hyperplane called 'present'. this hyperplane is (of course) co-moving with the observer and the observer is actually the point, where future and past light-cone touch. An angle in this diagram represents a velocity and c is represented by 45°. Now the realm of QM is actually the point called 'observer' and its close proximity. Now we allow a spectrum of velocity from zero to infinity. We know, that infinite velocity would look static and creates tiny circles about the hyperplane of the present. The axis of time is orthogonal to that plane and behaves like a normal vector to a rotation about this plane. If we combine both, we have both aspects of an atom: a static field, surrounding a massive core. If we would turn this 'atom' sideways, we would actually accelerate it, hence this static field would cut through the hyperplane of the present and would not look static any more. These wobbles are regarded as waves, hence radiate away (with c). The remainder is then an ion, (since the rays are missing). If these rays hit something, the rays turn into electrons again. If we turn an atom entirely into a different direction, it would look like rays, but these would not radiate away. Actually the atom pops out of existence, if the axis of stability is beyond the light cone. If we turn the axis of time into the direction of stability of such an atom, it's material matter again, associated with it's own space, in which it is a material object. Now many of these timeline form 'time domains', which are all real worlds (as is our world). Only the direction of time is different. This 'turning of the timeline' is now, what relativity does and what QM does not allow. To decide, who is right, it is possible to try to create matter out of nothing. 'Big-bang' is actually 'matter from nothing'. But less spectacular examples would do. I personally think, that it is possible to create dust inside a seal container of clear plastic by something like pulsed microwaves. Another example would be 'Growing Earth' (what I try to prove for this reason).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 08:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nltici$2u6$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387488 |
On 7/9/2016 10:20 AM, Y wrote: > I really don't see the point in these theories being combined into one. Can anyone explain very simply the point of doing so ? > > As far as I understand the kinds of predictions made with QM regard something altogether different from gravitation. Maybe I'm wrong ? > > -y > The other three interactions, electromagnetic, weak, and strong, are all known to be in their best form (accuracy of predictions, remember, is the measure of a theory) in quantum field form. There is the thought, then, that gravity probably is of similar character, but we just don't know how to do it yet. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 10:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dvednQ_V3vIC9B_KnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #387488 |
On 7/9/16 7/9/16 10:20 AM, Y wrote: > I really don't see the point in these theories being combined into one. Can > anyone explain very simply the point of doing so ? Sure: the world works (i.e. in every regime that occurs in the world, at every scale, nature behaves in some manner). At present we don't have a theory that describes how nature works at every scale -- QM describes how nature works at small scales, and GR describes how nature works at large scales, but in between they are incompatible. As nature works at these intermediate scales, there must be some theory that describes it; presumably it is some sort of "combination" of QM and GR, but that is just a guess, as it could be something else altogether (and the current major research efforts are indeed something else: string theory and loop quantum gravity). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 08:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <31cd6ad9-5e53-417f-80ca-bef6f9b0d1a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387520 |
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:28:38 AM UTC+10, tjrob137 wrote: > On 7/9/16 7/9/16 10:20 AM, Y wrote: > > I really don't see the point in these theories being combined into one. Can > > anyone explain very simply the point of doing so ? > > Sure: the world works (i.e. in every regime that occurs in the world, at every > scale, nature behaves in some manner). > > At present we don't have a theory that describes how nature works at every scale > -- QM describes how nature works at small scales, and GR describes how nature > works at large scales, but in between they are incompatible. As nature works at > these intermediate scales, there must be some theory that describes it; > presumably it is some sort of "combination" of QM and GR, but that is just a > guess, as it could be something else altogether (and the current major research > efforts are indeed something else: string theory and loop quantum gravity). > > > Tom Roberts I still don't really get the point. As far as I can tell, any quantum field theory could only really be used to explain particles and their 'local' interactions with some probability density describing non-local interactions. Looking at something like GR, which seems to describe an emergent decoherence of large numbers of these interactions, what we seem to have is two very different types of theory, (one which attempts to explain fundamental particle interactions at the small scale, and the other which approximates these to a much broader context). Take a biological analogy for example. Where a QFT would be describing say a number of individual organisms, and their interactions, GR describes the environmental conditions for which the behavior of the parts emerge en mass. I just don't see the need or a purpose here for a multitool, other than say clerical convenience. Such clerical convenience seems to be what string theory attempts, or LQG, the outcomes of which do not seem to be satisfactory theories in any scientific sense, but things that maybe useful in some 'clerical' framework in order to organise all other frameworks. It's no wonder therefore that either of these attempts do not provide any unique predictions. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 17:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nm0cpq$e3c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #387578 |
On 07/11/2016 05:00 PM, Y wrote: > I still don't really get the point. As far as I can tell, any quantum field theory could only really be used to explain particles and their 'local' interactions with some probability density describing non-local interactions. > > Looking at something like GR, which seems to describe an emergent decoherence of large numbers of these interactions, what we seem to have is two very different types of theory, (one which attempts to explain fundamental particle interactions at the small scale, and the other which approximates these to a much broader context). > > Take a biological analogy for example. Where a QFT would be describing say a number of individual organisms, and their interactions, GR describes the environmental conditions for which the behavior of the parts emerge en mass. > > I just don't see the need or a purpose here for a multitool, other than say clerical convenience. Such clerical convenience seems to be what string theory attempts, or LQG, the outcomes of which do not seem to be satisfactory theories in any scientific sense, but things that maybe useful in some 'clerical' framework in order to organise all other frameworks. It's no wonder therefore that either of these attempts do not provide any unique predictions. > What is difficult on understanding the desire of physicists to have a physical model considering quantum effects in nonflat spacetime ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 08:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96fe0b6f-4a8b-493d-b015-a074d25dbc9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387579 |
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 1:08:44 AM UTC+10, Poutnik wrote: > On 07/11/2016 05:00 PM, Y wrote: > > > I still don't really get the point. As far as I can tell, any quantum field theory could only really be used to explain particles and their 'local' interactions with some probability density describing non-local interactions. > > > > Looking at something like GR, which seems to describe an emergent decoherence of large numbers of these interactions, what we seem to have is two very different types of theory, (one which attempts to explain fundamental particle interactions at the small scale, and the other which approximates these to a much broader context). > > > > Take a biological analogy for example. Where a QFT would be describing say a number of individual organisms, and their interactions, GR describes the environmental conditions for which the behavior of the parts emerge en mass. > > > > I just don't see the need or a purpose here for a multitool, other than say clerical convenience. Such clerical convenience seems to be what string theory attempts, or LQG, the outcomes of which do not seem to be satisfactory theories in any scientific sense, but things that maybe useful in some 'clerical' framework in order to organise all other frameworks. It's no wonder therefore that either of these attempts do not provide any unique predictions. > > > > What is difficult on understanding the desire of physicists > to have a physical model > considering quantum effects in nonflat spacetime ? Well this is precisely my point. Again and again when I come to understand and picture what each of the theories attempts, there seems to be again and again, the same recurring pattern of inconsistency between fundamental parts (like particles), and what these things entail when behaving as groups (i.e. waves, or the spacetime curvature). This is what brought me to my most recent experiment, where I demonstrate just how simply, even classical bodies, objects, can behave as waves, when a large number of them are 1. subject to disturbances, or 2. distribute according to some initial conditions. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 08:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fb77ad17-0e85-467f-a92e-89ca7a9217ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387578 |
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 1:00:37 AM UTC+10, Y wrote: > On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:28:38 AM UTC+10, tjrob137 wrote: > > On 7/9/16 7/9/16 10:20 AM, Y wrote: > > > I really don't see the point in these theories being combined into one. Can > > > anyone explain very simply the point of doing so ? > > > > Sure: the world works (i.e. in every regime that occurs in the world, at every > > scale, nature behaves in some manner). > > > > At present we don't have a theory that describes how nature works at every scale > > -- QM describes how nature works at small scales, and GR describes how nature > > works at large scales, but in between they are incompatible. As nature works at > > these intermediate scales, there must be some theory that describes it; > > presumably it is some sort of "combination" of QM and GR, but that is just a > > guess, as it could be something else altogether (and the current major research > > efforts are indeed something else: string theory and loop quantum gravity). > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > I still don't really get the point. As far as I can tell, any quantum field theory could only really be used to explain particles and their 'local' interactions with some probability density describing non-local interactions. > > Looking at something like GR, which seems to describe an emergent decoherence of large numbers of these interactions, what we seem to have is two very different types of theory, (one which attempts to explain fundamental particle interactions at the small scale, and the other which approximates these to a much broader context). > > Take a biological analogy for example. Where a QFT would be describing say a number of individual organisms, and their interactions, GR describes the environmental conditions for which the behavior of the parts emerge en mass. > > I just don't see the need or a purpose here for a multitool, other than say clerical convenience. Such clerical convenience seems to be what string theory attempts, or LQG, the outcomes of which do not seem to be satisfactory theories in any scientific sense, but things that maybe useful in some 'clerical' framework in order to organise all other frameworks. It's no wonder therefore that either of these attempts do not provide any unique predictions. > > -y In addition (of course) in order to achieve that clerical convenience, authors of these theories have made bizarre ontological claims - like the existence of 1 dimensional strings etc or dark energy. It just seems history repeating. I imagine eventually someone like Einstein will come along and say "we don't need to think of these strings as existing in any form, or for Dark energy to exist in any form - it is sufficient to simply say that the theory makes accurate predictions combining those made by QFT and GR into the one clerical convenience). -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 13:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm0pai$qkg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387580 |
On 7/11/2016 10:08 AM, Y wrote: > On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 1:00:37 AM UTC+10, Y wrote: >> On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:28:38 AM UTC+10, tjrob137 wrote: >>> On 7/9/16 7/9/16 10:20 AM, Y wrote: >>>> I really don't see the point in these theories being combined into one. Can >>>> anyone explain very simply the point of doing so ? >>> >>> Sure: the world works (i.e. in every regime that occurs in the world, at every >>> scale, nature behaves in some manner). >>> >>> At present we don't have a theory that describes how nature works at every scale >>> -- QM describes how nature works at small scales, and GR describes how nature >>> works at large scales, but in between they are incompatible. As nature works at >>> these intermediate scales, there must be some theory that describes it; >>> presumably it is some sort of "combination" of QM and GR, but that is just a >>> guess, as it could be something else altogether (and the current major research >>> efforts are indeed something else: string theory and loop quantum gravity). >>> >>> >>> Tom Roberts >> >> I still don't really get the point. As far as I can tell, any quantum field theory could only >> really be used to explain particles and their 'local' interactions with some probability density >> describing non-local interactions. >> >> Looking at something like GR, which seems to describe an emergent decoherence of large numbers >> of these interactions, what we seem to have is two very different types of theory, (one which >> attempts to explain fundamental particle interactions at the small scale, and the other which >> approximates these to a much broader context). >> >> Take a biological analogy for example. Where a QFT would be describing say a number of individual >> organisms, and their interactions, GR describes the environmental conditions for which the behavior >> of the parts emerge en mass. >> >> I just don't see the need or a purpose here for a multitool, other than say clerical convenience. >> Such clerical convenience seems to be what string theory attempts, or LQG, the outcomes of which >> do not seem to be satisfactory theories in any scientific sense, but things that maybe useful in >> some 'clerical' framework in order to organise all other frameworks. It's no wonder therefore that >> either of these attempts do not provide any unique predictions. >> >> -y Well, in a way you're right. Quantum field theory describes things at a particle level and in the domain where Planck's constant is not negligible, and general relativity describes things at a more macro level with large objects and mass interactions. However, there is also a strong desire on the part of physicists to find *more fundamental* explanations. As an example of this, you can do an enormous amount with thermodynamics of gases without ever even acknowledging the molecular nature of gases. But it was of tremendous value to show how the kinetic theory of thermodynamics explains at a deeper level what pressure is due to, what entropy means in terms of microstates, and so on. In this sense, though you don't have to use kinetic theory to make a good number of useful predictions, it is understood by scientists that the kinetic theory is more fundamental. In the same way, there are macroscopic laws of electrodynamics. And what's fascinating is that you can show where all those collective behaviors come from, by referring to the microscopic QFT called quantum electrodynamics. That is, there is nothing in the macroscopic, collective theory of electromagnetism that isn't accounted for in QED. While this is true in principle and demonstrable, this doesn't mean that all electromagnetic analyses are done with QED. On the contrary, in many cases it's useful to use the "continuum approximation" or "bulk behavior approximation" to do those calculations, and then you're using a non-QFT approach even if the underlying reality is quantum. There's an identical program being pursued for gravity, to find the underlying quantum mechanical theory that, at large scales, reduces to general relativity in approximation. > > In addition (of course) in order to achieve that clerical convenience, authors of these theories have > made bizarre ontological claims - like the existence of 1 dimensional strings etc or dark energy. It > just seems history repeating. I imagine eventually someone like Einstein will come along and say "we > don't need to think of these strings as existing in any form, or for Dark energy to exist in any form - > it is sufficient to simply say that the theory makes accurate predictions combining those made by QFT > and GR into the one clerical convenience). > > -y > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 12:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bd2b5174-7f9a-4f9e-beb4-2f9a2622e9ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387599 |
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 4:42:31 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/11/2016 10:08 AM, Y wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 1:00:37 AM UTC+10, Y wrote: > >> On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:28:38 AM UTC+10, tjrob137 wrote: > >>> On 7/9/16 7/9/16 10:20 AM, Y wrote: > >>>> I really don't see the point in these theories being combined into one. Can > >>>> anyone explain very simply the point of doing so ? > >>> > >>> Sure: the world works (i.e. in every regime that occurs in the world, at every > >>> scale, nature behaves in some manner). > >>> > >>> At present we don't have a theory that describes how nature works at every scale > >>> -- QM describes how nature works at small scales, and GR describes how nature > >>> works at large scales, but in between they are incompatible. As nature works at > >>> these intermediate scales, there must be some theory that describes it; > >>> presumably it is some sort of "combination" of QM and GR, but that is just a > >>> guess, as it could be something else altogether (and the current major research > >>> efforts are indeed something else: string theory and loop quantum gravity). > >>> > >>> > >>> Tom Roberts > >> > >> I still don't really get the point. As far as I can tell, any quantum field theory could only > >> really be used to explain particles and their 'local' interactions with some probability density > >> describing non-local interactions. > >> > >> Looking at something like GR, which seems to describe an emergent decoherence of large numbers > >> of these interactions, what we seem to have is two very different types of theory, (one which > >> attempts to explain fundamental particle interactions at the small scale, and the other which > >> approximates these to a much broader context). > >> > >> Take a biological analogy for example. Where a QFT would be describing say a number of individual > >> organisms, and their interactions, GR describes the environmental conditions for which the behavior > >> of the parts emerge en mass. > >> > >> I just don't see the need or a purpose here for a multitool, other than say clerical convenience. > >> Such clerical convenience seems to be what string theory attempts, or LQG, the outcomes of which > >> do not seem to be satisfactory theories in any scientific sense, but things that maybe useful in > >> some 'clerical' framework in order to organise all other frameworks. It's no wonder therefore that > >> either of these attempts do not provide any unique predictions. > >> > >> -y > > Well, in a way you're right. Quantum field theory describes things at a > particle level and in the domain where Planck's constant is not > negligible, and general relativity describes things at a more macro > level with large objects and mass interactions. > > However, there is also a strong desire on the part of physicists to find > *more fundamental* explanations. As an example of this, you can do an > enormous amount with thermodynamics of gases without ever even > acknowledging the molecular nature of gases. But it was of tremendous > value to show how the kinetic theory of thermodynamics explains at a > deeper level what pressure is due to, what entropy means in terms of > microstates, and so on. In this sense, though you don't have to use > kinetic theory to make a good number of useful predictions, it is > understood by scientists that the kinetic theory is more fundamental. > > In the same way, there are macroscopic laws of electrodynamics. And > what's fascinating is that you can show where all those collective > behaviors come from, by referring to the microscopic QFT called quantum > electrodynamics. That is, there is nothing in the macroscopic, > collective theory of electromagnetism that isn't accounted for in QED. > While this is true in principle and demonstrable, this doesn't mean that > all electromagnetic analyses are done with QED. On the contrary, in many > cases it's useful to use the "continuum approximation" or "bulk behavior > approximation" to do those calculations, and then you're using a non-QFT > approach even if the underlying reality is quantum. > > There's an identical program being pursued for gravity, to find the > underlying quantum mechanical theory that, at large scales, reduces to > general relativity in approximation. > > > > > In addition (of course) in order to achieve that clerical convenience, authors of these theories have > > made bizarre ontological claims - like the existence of 1 dimensional strings etc or dark energy. It > > just seems history repeating. I imagine eventually someone like Einstein will come along and say "we > > don't need to think of these strings as existing in any form, or for Dark energy to exist in any form - > > it is sufficient to simply say that the theory makes accurate predictions combining those made by QFT > > and GR into the one clerical convenience). > > > > -y > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Take a look at this of Dr Hajdukovic. where mg + -mg = 0 represents a gravitational dipole. Just brilliant! Here, we might find just exactly a quantum reason for gravitational repulsion and do away with dark energy completely! I would of course, still be maintaining the hypothesis that gravitational bodies absorb weaker electromagnetic energies, to the gravitational centre, which would allow the dipoles to be aligned in the first place. I would like to see, however, this done in conjunction with the null geodesic with GR (to which these dipoles are aligned) for a QFT conforming to GR geometry. But mostly I'm eager to see the results of the produced antimatter in freefall which as I understand it are being tested; so even more wonderful a test for this unique prediction ! Dr Hajdukovic could very well be our next Einstein. Ok, so to me, this DOES give us a nice unique prediction of a QFT solving many of the problems of Standard model, GR and even beautifully Newtonian gravity. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1201/1201.4594.pdf -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 14:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm0r8k$t8l$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387605 |
On 7/11/2016 2:07 PM, Y wrote: > Take a look at this of Dr Hajdukovic. > > where mg + -mg = 0 represents a gravitational dipole. The bar above the second m_g in the author's equation does not mean minus. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 12:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <edd3d00c-7e7a-41b1-b9af-a433bf7d3359@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #387609 |
Is m_g the better way using ascii ? Can latex work on usenet ? I always seem to have trouble with latex or similar plugins. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 22:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <duqc4iFsnuoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387599 |
Am 11.07.2016 20:42, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > > There's an identical program being pursued for gravity, to find the > underlying quantum mechanical theory that, at large scales, reduces to > general relativity in approximation. If there is a connection between QM and GR, this would not necessarily mean, they are connected in the way you think they are. It's really bad practise to anticipate the outcome of future experiments and derive from such possible results, what we hope to find. There is actually no guarantee, such future experiments will behave as expected and eventually things turn out to be very different than we think. So 'quantum gravity' is a possibility, but by no means a must. I personally assume, that the standard model of QM is wrong - mainly because I think, the idea of particles itself is wrong. But what do you think about my proposal to create particles out of spacetime? This would also be a connection, but would connect QM from the GR side (and not from QM to GR, as you assume). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 16:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nm9092$pfu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387781 |
On 7/14/2016 3:48 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 11.07.2016 20:42, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> >> There's an identical program being pursued for gravity, to find the >> underlying quantum mechanical theory that, at large scales, reduces to >> general relativity in approximation. > > If there is a connection between QM and GR, this would not necessarily > mean, they are connected in the way you think they are. > > It's really bad practise to anticipate the outcome of future experiments > and derive from such possible results, what we hope to find. > > There is actually no guarantee, such future experiments will behave as > expected and eventually things turn out to be very different than we think. > > So 'quantum gravity' is a possibility, but by no means a must. Completely agree! > > I personally assume, that the standard model of QM is wrong - mainly > because I think, the idea of particles itself is wrong. Well, that depends on what you think "particles" entails. To most physicists these days that translates into a quantum field, which is much, much different than the classical notion of a particle. But to your earlier comment, the faith in a model is directly tied to how well it matches between expected and observed experimental results. And on that front, the standard model of quantum fields is spectacularly successful. There have been some quantities where the match is down to the 12th decimal place, which is just about unprecedented anywhere else. > > But what do you think about my proposal to create particles out of > spacetime? This would also be a connection, but would connect QM from > the GR side (and not from QM to GR, as you assume). I don't think physicists are going from QM to GR. Usually, they are going from GR to QM (or more accurately, to QFT). > > > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 07:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dur94vF4ekhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387785 |
Am 14.07.2016 23:30, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>> There's an identical program being pursued for gravity, to find the >>> underlying quantum mechanical theory that, at large scales, reduces to >>> general relativity in approximation. >> >> If there is a connection between QM and GR, this would not necessarily >> mean, they are connected in the way you think they are. >> >> It's really bad practise to anticipate the outcome of future experiments >> and derive from such possible results, what we hope to find. >> >> There is actually no guarantee, such future experiments will behave as >> expected and eventually things turn out to be very different than we >> think. >> >> So 'quantum gravity' is a possibility, but by no means a must. > > Completely agree! > >> >> I personally assume, that the standard model of QM is wrong - mainly >> because I think, the idea of particles itself is wrong. > > Well, that depends on what you think "particles" entails. To most > physicists these days that translates into a quantum field, which is > much, much different than the classical notion of a particle. > > But to your earlier comment, the faith in a model is directly tied to > how well it matches between expected and observed experimental results. > And on that front, the standard model of quantum fields is spectacularly > successful. There have been some quantities where the match is down to > the 12th decimal place, which is just about unprecedented anywhere else. My personal assumption is, that particles are not really things, but just specific aspects of an undivided 'real thing'. This 'real thing' I call 'spacetime' , (but 'quantum-field' or 'mumble' would serve the same purpose.) E.g. an electron represents a certain state, which has a potential and behaves as static field, while a proton has the opposite behaviour and has mass (inertia). In my own model this is 'one piece'. It is actually a rotation wave, which has a certain form, because angular momentum is conserved. So ingoing rotation speeds up and outgoing stops at a certain distance from the core, hence has a potential (to go inwards again). What rotates is actually nothing, that has split into two components. That is similar to split zero into positive numbers and negative numbers. But the connections between such 'elements of spacetime' is similar to how quaternions are multiplied, which is a rotation. This has two components, which multiply to nothing (left-handed and right-handed). Now our world is one of these parts and the negative we cannot see. So we inhabit the left-handed part of a gigantic fractal-like 'real-thing', from which we can only perceive certain aspects. The things we see and how they interact are not really independent, but are certain aspects of something very large. Matter is - in this picture- a 'timelike stable pattern', while fields are, what we assume to be the cause of the movement of material objects. Only this not really true, but our own interpretations of what we see. But there is a possibility to estimate, how this 'real thing' functions. My assumption is, that actually bi-quaternions behave in the way I assume this 'real thing' would function. Bi-quaternions are also called 'complex four-vectors'. So the question is, how to build spacetime (or 'quantum-field', if you prefer that) as kind of mathematical field of complex numbers. This is in fact possible. E.g. a spacetime diagram has similar structure as an Argand Diagram. Now the complex plane is flat and space(time) is not. So we need three orthogonal complex plains and a space, that has three orthogonal axis of type 'time'. The rotations within such a space build a group called SO3 and from such rotations particles and fields could be derived. This is till now my own idea, that I call 'structured spacetime'. I have also written kind of book about it, (that nobody wanted to read): https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 This aspect was slightly disappointing, so a spent my time with other things (rather then physics). >> >> But what do you think about my proposal to create particles out of >> spacetime? This would also be a connection, but would connect QM from >> the GR side (and not from QM to GR, as you assume). > > I don't think physicists are going from QM to GR. Usually, they are > going from GR to QM (or more accurately, to QFT). This seem to be correct, since my own approach is just that. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 07:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmaldq$ti2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #387798 |
On 7/15/2016 12:03 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 14.07.2016 23:30, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > >>>> There's an identical program being pursued for gravity, to find the >>>> underlying quantum mechanical theory that, at large scales, reduces to >>>> general relativity in approximation. >>> >>> If there is a connection between QM and GR, this would not necessarily >>> mean, they are connected in the way you think they are. >>> >>> It's really bad practise to anticipate the outcome of future experiments >>> and derive from such possible results, what we hope to find. >>> >>> There is actually no guarantee, such future experiments will behave as >>> expected and eventually things turn out to be very different than we >>> think. >>> >>> So 'quantum gravity' is a possibility, but by no means a must. >> >> Completely agree! >> >>> >>> I personally assume, that the standard model of QM is wrong - mainly >>> because I think, the idea of particles itself is wrong. >> >> Well, that depends on what you think "particles" entails. To most >> physicists these days that translates into a quantum field, which is >> much, much different than the classical notion of a particle. >> >> But to your earlier comment, the faith in a model is directly tied to >> how well it matches between expected and observed experimental results. >> And on that front, the standard model of quantum fields is spectacularly >> successful. There have been some quantities where the match is down to >> the 12th decimal place, which is just about unprecedented anywhere else. > > > My personal assumption is, that particles are not really things, but > just specific aspects of an undivided 'real thing'. Well, that's all fine and a pet metaphysical hypothesis of yours. This doesn't change these facts: 1. Modern physics describes things as quantum fields, not as classical particles. 2. The theory of quantum fields has enormous success at QUANTITATIVE, ACCURATE prediction of measurable phenomena. 3. These metrics of quantitative, accurate prediction of measurable phenomena are THE measures of validity of a scientific theory. Any other idea that does not meet these criteria is considered either scientifically inferior or scientifically irrelevant. > > This 'real thing' I call 'spacetime' , (but 'quantum-field' or 'mumble' > would serve the same purpose.) Not sure why you think of "spacetime" and "quantum field" as being the same thing. > > E.g. an electron represents a certain state, which has a potential and > behaves as static field, while a proton has the opposite behaviour and > has mass (inertia). > > In my own model this is 'one piece'. It is actually a rotation wave, > which has a certain form, because angular momentum is conserved. > > So ingoing rotation speeds up and outgoing stops at a certain distance > from the core, hence has a potential (to go inwards again). > > What rotates is actually nothing, that has split into two components. > That is similar to split zero into positive numbers and negative numbers. > > But the connections between such 'elements of spacetime' is similar to > how quaternions are multiplied, which is a rotation. > > This has two components, which multiply to nothing (left-handed and > right-handed). > > Now our world is one of these parts and the negative we cannot see. So > we inhabit the left-handed part of a gigantic fractal-like 'real-thing', > from which we can only perceive certain aspects. > > The things we see and how they interact are not really independent, but > are certain aspects of something very large. > > Matter is - in this picture- a 'timelike stable pattern', while fields > are, what we assume to be the cause of the movement of material objects. > Only this not really true, but our own interpretations of what we see. > > But there is a possibility to estimate, how this 'real thing' functions. > > My assumption is, that actually bi-quaternions behave in the way I > assume this 'real thing' would function. > > Bi-quaternions are also called 'complex four-vectors'. > > So the question is, how to build spacetime (or 'quantum-field', if you > prefer that) as kind of mathematical field of complex numbers. > > This is in fact possible. E.g. a spacetime diagram has similar structure > as an Argand Diagram. > > Now the complex plane is flat and space(time) is not. So we need three > orthogonal complex plains and a space, that has three orthogonal axis of > type 'time'. > > The rotations within such a space build a group called SO3 and from such > rotations particles and fields could be derived. > > This is till now my own idea, that I call 'structured spacetime'. > > I have also written kind of book about it, (that nobody wanted to read): > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > This aspect was slightly disappointing, so a spent my time with other > things (rather then physics). > > >>> >>> But what do you think about my proposal to create particles out of >>> spacetime? This would also be a connection, but would connect QM from >>> the GR side (and not from QM to GR, as you assume). >> >> I don't think physicists are going from QM to GR. Usually, they are >> going from GR to QM (or more accurately, to QFT). > > This seem to be correct, since my own approach is just that. I think the point was that if you had read up a little on what scientists were ACTUALLY doing, you wouldn't have so casually mischaracterized it. > > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web