(continued)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngeo
The essence of a force is the acceleration it produces. A volume of space which is expanded by the addition of a constant volume will expand at an ever decreasing rate. Such a force is unlikely to be responsible for universal evolution. A volume of space which is expanded at an ever-increasing rate, such as is the apparent acceleration ‘observed’ by the Chandra telescope, seems similarly unlikely.
|
Why?
Quote:
|
The field which could produce such an acceleration would be unlikely to create the harmonic universe we see.
|
Why?
Quote:
The Planckian description of time and space dimensions utilizes a constant speed, the speed of light, to arrive at ‘natural units’. It seems only ‘natural’ that a similar description of an expanding spatial volume would utilize a similar constant rate of expansion. And from this constant expansion rate, an evolutionary scenario emerges which can encompass the creation of mass within an energetic field. That is the purpose of this scenario.
This is a scenario for a universal system whose fundamental form is that of an expanding energy field by whose expansion all descendant systems are created. The essential feature of this scenario is that there is no differentiation between ‘space’ and ‘matter’. In this scenario ‘matter’ is a rotational form of ‘space’ (or ‘space‘ is a non-rotational form of ‘matter‘), so both ‘space’ and ’matter’ are ways of describing what is ultimately energy. ‘Matter’ does not simply curve spacetime; matter is curved spacetime - rotating energy - and this rotation sets it apart from ‘non-material‘ spatial energy flows. Rather than energy being the property, or quantity of the property, of changing the state of a system, energy at its root is the ability to create a system by expanding, and this ability underlies all evolving physical systems.
|
Such as?
Quote:
Space and time ‘dimensions’ are ways of measuring the flows of energy.
In this scenario ‘gravity’ can be described as the curvature of space or as an attractive ‘force’. Space can be described as an energetic field. The ‘beauty’ of this scenario is that out of a single path - outward - the universe creates an endlessly increasing number of possible and actual paths, some good and some not so good.
|
In what sense can a 'path' be considered 'good' or 'not so good'?
Quote:
|
It eliminates the need for a highly unlikely inflation scenario and eventual heat death necessary if there is a finite amount of matter in the universe (and if ‘space‘ and ‘matter‘ are treated as separate physical entities), since the expansion of ‘space’ naturally creates ‘matter’ in a constant ratio.
|
I can see how this would (could?) get rid of an 'eventual heat death', but not inflation - can you clarify please?
Quote:
|
It may produce a mathematical description which reconciles the conflict between classical and quantum theories without the need for a ‘graviton’ or a Higgs field.
|
I expect that you'll be saying more about this 'may' later, so I won't comment here, except to ask whether it might also produce a novel interpretation of the observational resolution of the
EPR paradox.
Quote:
|
The scenario assumes that the field expands at a constant rate (say c). This natural limit creates pressure in the form of curvature within the field, since all regions within the field cannot expand at c. On average, the field expands only at half its potential, or to put it another way, the field has the capacity to create twice the volume it actually creates.
|
I'm confused about the dimensions here - 'c' has dimensions of LT
-1, volume (and presumably your 'field') of L
3 - what is it that 'expands at c'?
I also think there's an inconsistency about this 'expansion' - do all volumes, no matter how big or small, expand at the same rate?
Quote:
|
This leads to an interesting (and admittedly elementary) result. Using nameless spatial and time units, say the field expands to a radius of one spatial unit in one time unit, creating a volume of 4.1905 cubic spatial units,
|
Where did this number come from? Are you assuming a 3D flat field?
Quote:
|
and has the capacity to produce a volume of 8.38095 units. The radius of the larger volume is approximately 1.2595. Imposed on the smaller radius, this could be said to represent a ‘curvature ratio’ of 1.2595 to 1. As the field expands this ratio remains constant. If we take ‘spatial curvature’ as ‘gravitational curvature’, this implies that approximately 21 percent of the volume of the field is subject to gravitational curvature, while 79 percent is not, although I don’t think it is that cut and dried. If gravitational curvature represents mass energy, then it could be said that a maximum of 21 percent of the universe would be in the form of ‘mass energy’ and the rest in the form of ‘vacuum energy‘, regardless of the age of the universe - although how much of the ‘mass energy’ is actually in the form of ‘massive bodies’ and how much is in the form of spacetime curvature between them, I don’t know. The further question is how ‘mass’ is arrived at.
|
I don't follow this at all; for example, why 2 (and not any other number >1)?
Quote:
|
On the scale of one, taking the basic formula by which gravitational force is measured (inverse to the square of the distance from a ‘center‘) and adopting it as a formula for gravitational curvature, it seems reasonable that of the curvature produced by the additional radius of .2595 found above, by far the greatest part will take place within a radius .1 (or .01, or .001, or . . .) of a ‘center of curvature’, i.e. a ‘center of mass’ of a single ‘particle‘ of mass.
|
Do you have a 'singularity' (infinite curvature) for a point particle? at any (every?) point in space??[/quote]The question then is, what form (or path) does this curvature, or mass, take? I believe that the curvature at a ‘center of mass’ will be a rotational flow of energy, maintained and required by the field. However, this rotation should not be on a single axis, but simultaneously on three axes in order for the rotation to account for energetic flow from all directions in space.[/quote]This seems to be an odd definition of 'rotation' - if we took a point on the surface of a sphere, what shape would be traced out by this rotation 'simultaneously on three axes'?
Quote:
It seems a single rotational period is the simplest to model, although such a rotation (as I have modeled it on three axes) does not produce a 360 degree rotation. And how the curvature will be determined between bodies I do not know.
Here the question is whether currently available mathematical ’tools’ can be used to translate a rotating space, rotating on three axes, into a formula for ’mass’. It seems that concepts such as Planck length and Planck time, the gravitational constant, and angular momentum should allow for some kind of determination. The gravitational constant may be problematic, but if the spinning region does turn out to be a region of ’mass’, it seems a gravitational (or inertial) value should be attributable to it. The spinning region would at least have angular momentum. Not knowing the math involved, I wonder whether it is possible to arrive at a translation of rotation into mass which can be incorporated into consistent theories.
|
I think you've put your finger on it ... without the math, it's hard to 'see' what sense to make of all these words.
I'm also wondering whether this idea gives rise to an isotropic universe, and whether you could avoid internal inconsistency (e.g. presumably, in your picture, 'curvature' should be invariant under translations and rotations of coordinate axes)?
Quote:
|
There are eight possible combinations of simultaneous three-axial rotation,
|
What are they?
Quote:
and interestingly, two distinct kinds of motion arise on a hypothetical spherical surface from these combinations. (I am not suggesting that a sphere will arise, but it seems a spherical rotation on three axes is necessary to model rotation responding to force from all directions.) I am not in a position to model (any further than I already have) these two distinct kinds of motion, but it would be interesting if three-axial spin could be modeled using computer simulation. Then further combinations could also be modeled.
I believe that combinations of spin are possible which can absorb more energy than the field can produce, at which time bodies will exchange energy between them, or radiate energy out to the field as photons.
|
So what are photons, in this idea of yours? They are not 'space' and not 'matter' (or are they?)
Quote:
|
This radiation will take the form of a kind of ‘breathing’. (And on a large scale, rather than stars ‘collapsing’ under gravitational pressure, they are finding more efficient spin mechanisms.)
|
In what sense is a 'spin mechanism' 'efficient'?
Quote:
|
If the circumference of the spinning region is set to 1, indicating both a circumference equal to the radius of the original volume, and also that a point on the surface of a sphere corresponding to the extent of the spinning region returns to its original position in 1 time unit, then its radius is ~ .0159, and its volume ~ .0168 cubic units. Interestingly, the ratio between the original surface area of the expanding sphere and the surface area of the spinning region is ~ 39.25 to 1, which is very close to the ratio of gravitational curvature or force between their radii, ~ 39.5 to 1.
|
I don't see how you got these numbers - could you please show the working?
Quote:
This indicates to me that this ‘particle’ has gravitational mass.
The motion of various points on the surface of the spinning region follows various curves, which indicates that there is a torque applied to the spinning region, and a constant acceleration in the form of constant change of direction or curvature.
|
You lost me - which comes first, the 'points following various curves' or the 'torque' (or, which gives rise to what)?
Quote:
|
If the energy of this ‘particle’ can be derived from the formula E = hf for a massless particle, then its E = ~ 4.136 x 10^-15 x ~5.391 x 10^44 = ~2.23 x 10^29 eV.s
|
Where did these numbers come from? Isn't it 10^30? what units are 'eV.s'?
Quote:
|
(if the frequency is taken as the number of cycles per second). If one electron volt is equivalent to ~1.783 x 10^-36 kg, then the mass of this ‘particle’ would be ~ 3.97 x 10^-7 kg, compared with a Planck mass of ~ 2.176 x 10^-8 kg, the mass of an electron of ~ 9.109 x 10^-31 kg, and the mass of a proton of ~ 1.6726 x 10^-27 kg.
|
So?
(to be continued)