Hi dear members of this forum
my I annoy you another time?
I'm dealing with a problem in a kind of theory I'm working on. That model is based on an assumption: if GR describes gravity correctly with stress-energy tensors and uses a model of spacetime, than those stress-energies must be possible to express with means of spacetime. Since Gr is known to be background independent, anything GR uses must be able to express as a way spacetime behaves. Why that? Because there is nothing else to fill those tensors, they are spacetime itself, since that doesn't consist of anything else.
I have found a way something could behave like that: if you think, spacetime is imaginary three-dimensional and time is not independent but an outcome of the special behavior of those 'points'. I give them a feature of orientation. It's just a point with a direction, those 'points' interact with their neighbors by twisting each other- in a specific way: they turn them in the same direction at infinite speed. To see that, we have to turn that imaginary thing into real observations. Those points spin and keep energy and their orientation like tiny gyroscopes.
This picture gives patterns, that look quite like atoms. But only the real aspect looks like an atom. The imaginary aspect looks like a field.
That was only the introduction, but now the problem:
those 'atoms' are not observer invariant! It depends on the state of movement, what one would regard as an atom or as radiation. That would render the whole idea of particles useless, because an atom can't be an atom and radiation at the same time.
Now they switch on the LHC and I guess they will face this problem: where do all these particles come from?

Wow, did you just invent the concept of vectors?

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Or he finally discovered the concept of spinors.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Well, that's true, but wasn't the point.
The question is, if it make sense to regard particles as fundamental if number and kind are not observer invariant.

I'm not sure what you mean here. If I observe a proton and you do not, what is it that you observe? If I observe a carbon-12 nucleus (a collection of six protons and six neutrons for some purposes and one particle for others) and you do not, what is it that you observe?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

The effect is difficult to see. But imagine we would turn the relation of timelike and spacelike aspect due to gravity (or any other accelaration), than matter would start to radiate. Like distant stars in the centre of our galaxy. One could think of space to be curved and matter start to radiate. But it seems to radiate for us here on earth as distant observers. In the vicinity it wouldn't radiate. So it sends out gamma rays if space is curved and stays as matter if space isn't - at the same time!
It's the same effect as if we smash particles together in an accelerator, but there one can't easily imagine to be there. The principle of Einstein's relativity states, that both observations are of equal rights: one in rest and one accelerated. That would include tough accelerations, what you could call 'non-conservation' of particles. If you time revert that, a lot of particles would vanish and a few got accelerated.

Are you suggesting that spacetime can be simultaneously curved and flat at a particular point?

Spacetime is not curved. There is curvature of spacetime, but what gets curved is space and space is what an observer makes out of spacetime.
The term curved spacetime makes no sense, because time has no form and worldlines of an object can be straight or curved at the same time for different observers.
What I want to express is: if we want to model fundamental processes, we have to do it observer invariant. So we can't use particles. Strings are particles, a Higgs boson is a particle, gravitons are particles. We can't use such concepts for the intended purposes, since particles in general are not observer invariant.
Since the GRT is the 'real' thing, a fundamental process must be invariant for all free falling objects. SRT and Minkowski spacetime wouldn't be a proper foundation, what would leave only spacetime of GR. There must be a way, that all kinds of phenomena are based on something, that this space could actually do. It should be dumb, simple and local, since anything fundamental can't act over a distance. Why? Because that would gain three things: a thing, a mediator and a space, and that would leave the fundamental question open.

Are you trying to connect small numbers of Planck-time sized hunks of space-time directly to particles? I'm not sure I follow what you're proposing here.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Almost that. Planck time is not that interesting (and it's a time). I actually use some strange concepts. First I'm doing a kind of dimension analysis with a construct called triality. That is not a point or so. It goes like line, area and volume. The relation is linear, square and qubic. Than I 'comb' through all kind of physics and don't find a fourth relation. So a fundamental process must be multiplicative and three dimensional. That would fit to a three dimensional spacetime with time as dependent of something unknown. Than I've stared at the formula for intervals and wondered, what on earth could behave like that.
There is a kind of numbers called polysigned numbers by Timothy Golden, that would fulfill the demands. Those numbers would gain little ball-like things, that one could interpret as atoms. It would be possible, too, to use bi-quaternions or octonions to model particles. There I'm not sure. There are some sites about this topics, one from Mr. Baez. This is because of the triality relations. Particles are volumetric entities and would need a cubic relation to describe them.
The interpretation of h would be the volume of a unit sphere. That stems from the need of a full turn in all directions. That sphere has the dimension of an action. It is a sphere of certain size, because we define light as radiation in vacuum. We could think of phonons, what are something equivalent to photons in solids, but light is defined as influence over empty space. It would need two rounds for a full turn in one direction due to antisymmetry. Multiplying the diameter of a the unit sphere with the Rydberg frequency would gain a second. That is roughly the model.
Since the concept is relativistic and describes something imaginary, one would need an observer, to actually see something. The observer is most important. He is just somewhere. There he observes, what is around and bases his observation on his own state of being. That turns his observations into reals, because others can't be seen. That is done by turning quaternions (what are representations for events) into real four-vectors by multiplying the quaternions with i.

If you'll excuse me for asking, OP, what is your math background?

The reason I ask is because there are things in GR that are not easy to express without the proper tools. And for what it's worth, I don't have them either.

Regards, John M.

In fact my math isn't too bad, but there are things I have more talent in. I can understand all kinds of math, but doing it, there is something missing in my brain. Without knowing, what a model actually means, I can't understand.
I'm an engineer with some talents in arts, so I think about 'mechanisms' or how those machines function, draw that as a sketch and stepwise refine the picture. Once that is done I try to apply math. So math is for me a tool to describe things quantitatively. And it's a codification of what is actually known about relations. To do something new, one can't use math, because it is at first hand not known, what to describe and what kind of math is needed.

Well said. You just neatly summarized the problem of rote math without understanding, my own great stumbling block.

You might try the Wiki articles on Relativity, with the usual caveat about Wiki, see Chris Hillman and others. There are several different levels available for the math approach. It's a revelation; the initial steps to frame independent GR gave ol' Albert trouble, so I don't feel too bad.

Regards, John M.

Thanks a lot, since I've not got that many friendly replies.
I think, one just should do it, what ever is the plan. I try things, that are well above my abilities. But that isn't bad, because it's possible to learn and big plans give big results (or big mess..).
Now I understand relativity quite well and it will get better, if I understand my algebra processor.

Something to add:
it is interesting to look at the thread 'On Comets' and try to find out, what is the problem. The problem seems to be: the comets are just a hunk of rock but the tail consists of water. Where does that come from?
That is the kind of problems, I want to address. Particles seem to be not observer invariant.

One more addition:
I have written this text: Physics and trialities. Just in case someone wants to read.

By Aether Wave Theory the particle concept can be explained as 0D strings. The Aether Wave Theory uses the scale invariant concept of particles, so called "unparticles". By AWT the Universe is basically formed by fractal noise, similar to Perlin Noise.



The whole trick is, this noise is very dense, so that just the thickest portion of that noise can be perceived as a flat 2D (mem)branes, 1D strings and - most notably - as a 0D particles. We can see this highly compressed structure in streaks of dark matter, pervading the cosmic space. The nodes of this net are the particles, analogous to vacuum particles: the black holes sitting at the centers of galaxies.

Why the Universe should be formed by scale invariant noise? This is simply most probable thing, which we can see from the field of completely random fluctuations of aether density. The AWT is anthropocentric in its present state: it doesn't explain, why we can see the reality, it just describes, what we'll see, if every unit of reality is formed by infinitely many other pieces of reality by the same way, like the density fluctuations inside of condensing vapor or gas. This is basically probabilistic approach - if we can see something, then the most probable thing is the fractal noise, given by multinomial distribution of another less visible entities, like the order perceived in sequence of random numbers...

Cool stuff. I still try to find a way, to model fractal patterns. Since now, I only know, there should be a way.
Maybe you like my idea, too, because it could explain, why that would be needed.

The Aether foam is nested. If you'll compress/condense the dense field of particles, it will exhibit a foamy density fluctuations. If you'll collapse this foam into dense liquid, a new generation of foamy density fluctuations will appear, and so on. If we are living inside of dense black hole, then the number of compression generations can be virtually unlimited.



This model isn't so speculative - we can even observe it during condensation of dense supercritical fluid. During this a new generation of fluid, composed of density fluctuations of previous fluid is formed temporarily. Now you can try to think, how the above model can be related to the model of yours.

This is quite easy by AWT. Everything what you'll need is just STRONG computer. You can model a Boltzmann gas, composed of colliding particles, exhibiting both attractive, both repulsive forces by transferring momentum. You'll simply try to simulate the behavior of dense gas under high pressure.



If the number of particle increases, the formation of foamy density fluctuations can be observed easily just by using of some one thousand of particles, or so. Unfortunately, here's a technical limit of my computer - for successful emulation of another generation of foam formation you'll need to introduce at least one million of particles, so that we should wait for some scientific simulation of this process.

Here's another possibility to simulate the formation of such nested phases mechanically by charged particles in so called plasma crystals or directly by free protons or electrons. The radiation of EMG waves inside of such system complicates the behavior of that model though, as the AWT model remains completely classical on its fundamental level. It's just a dense gas - all the complexity of EMG interaction follows from the complexity of fluctuation geometry inside of dense particle gas.

Newer heard of AWT. Is there a link?
'Aether' as a concept is somehow misleading, mainly it is necessary to define, what that should be. I personally think, that spacetime itself has aether-like features. I have no idea, why that is so, but I think, it is possible to boil down all kinds of relations to such a concept.
Aether as 'stuff in space' is most certainly a wrong idea.

The Aether foam concept is simple, but potent. It can explain easily for example the quantum mechanics and its particle-wave duality.

The foam exhibits an nonlinear behavior, as the soap foam gets more dense during shaking. Therefore every wave spreading through such foam makes the foam more dense temporarily at the same moment. You can check this behavior by using of the Java applet here.



This behavior can be understood easily, if we realize, everything what can be observed from random field of fluctuation are the fluctuations, where the randomness is less or more violated by ordered, collective motion. And the wave is the most deterministic, causal kind of motion, so it increases the "reality density" (it decreases the entropy density) at the place, where the wave is just spreading. So that every wave is spreading through particle environment like less-or more dense blob of this environment, i.e. like particle. By AWT this mechanism is infinitely recursive and all the Aether unparticles are made by the same way.



How such concept is related to quantum mechanics? Well, by a quite simple way: the Schrödinger equation describes the undulation of N-dimensional string, whose mass density is proportional to its energy density in each moment and location, i.e. the undulations of foam (so called the quantum string). You can check this behavior in DHTML applet here (sorry, for MS IE 6.0 browser only). I suppose, the relativistic version of Schrödinger equation (the Dirac's equation) describes the undulations of nested foam.

There is a logical error in such a concept: it explains 'stuff in space' with 'stuff in space'. In this case this kind of foam is the background. There is no evidence for such a foam, since we have reason to think, some relations are infinitely 'sharp' (or continuous). That is space itself. Otherwise we couldn't see such distant objects as we could see. We can have all levels of energy we like, since action is the unit of h and not energy. That must fit into a model too.

The concept of quantum foam is widespread in physics from times of J.A.Wheeler. Here are some later ideas, for example the string net liquid concept. Whole the LQG theory is based on the spin foam concept. Heim theory is using a concept of protosimplex, i.e. the spatial mesh composed of metron lattice.

If it's so, we are required to put the question: "by which way all these less or more abstract insights can be reconciled with material Aether concept"? The evidence of space-time foam in AWT follows simply from the way, by which the light propagates through space in the form of self-focusing wave packets, i.e. the photon particles. The vacuum foam is behaving like sort of self-tuned adaptive metamaterial in this extent: it auto-focuses every wave, so that dispersion of wave doesn't occur even at large distances.



The inhomogeneous character of space-time follows from dispersion of energy waves bellow certain limit, which is the reason of so called quantum uncertainty. This is analogous to dispersion of tiny waves at the water surface by spatial foamy density fluctuations of the underwater, resulting from Brownian motion of water molecules. The same phenomena leads to the breaking of Lorentz invariance on the cosmic scale, which can be observed as a dispersion of gamma rays during supernovae blasts (an analogy of Rayleigh dispersion of UV rays in Earth atmosphere). It's evident, the homogeneity of space-time foam is restricted just to certain spectral window, which we are living in. we can say, the Universe is basically inhomogeneous system of random fluctuations, but we are sampling its most transparent part and calling it the vacuum. The apparently large volume of vacuum with compare to volume of observable matter is the result of the giant compactification of space inside of particles and black holes.
This is simply the consequence of the recursive nature of Aether Wave Theory. Here's no upper or lower space-time level limit - each space is formed by gradient of underlying space, recursively. This concept is related to the concept of Hilbert space of quantum mechanics.



You're right at the point, the Aether doesn't supply an explicit answers - but at the case, the Universe isn't explicit as well, then the implicit approach brings a better model of reality.

A solution of this problem should not only fit, but should make some physical sense. That is in my eyes a philosophical question. I guess it's worth thinking about that and what we actually want to do. Time is a continuum and there is very few reason, that space isn't. What we don't know is, why and how space is connected to time. Then we are looking for something: 'dumb, simple and local'. That is so, because any bit of vacuum should perform this whatsoever. Quantum-foam isn't what I would call simple and it's in a way discontinuous. So there is no more reason to reject that model than for its lack of beauty. Quantum-models in general have some problems with curved space, but GR has to be obeyed too.

The question of time concept belongs outside scope of this topic, dedicated to particle concept - but the Aether Wave Theory is explaining it too. The crucial insight is, the time arrow doesn't exist inside of fully chaotic system of particles, because the movement of such system is completely symmetric with respect of causality. And because the energy cannot propagate through such chaotic system at the distance, such system lack the space, too.



At the moment, when some phase will condense from uch chaotic system , the interconnected network of dynamic foamy gradients will appear and the system becomes able to transfer the energy at the distance. A space-time foam is created and the density of energy spreading increases significantly (space-time inflation).

By such way, we can observe/study the formation of local space-time during each supercritical fluid condensation and nothing very strange is about it. If so, which quantity corresponds the time and which one corresponds the space in this model? Please note, that most the energy doesn't spreads through bulk phase here, but along surface gradients by the same way, like the waves at the water surface.

Any ideas? The solution was already explained here, for example - but try to find it independently.Technically, I'm the very first one, who attempted to illustrate this concept - so I cannot understand the aesthetic criterions, which the people have applied to it. By my opinion, the quantum foam is pretty nice stuff. It's not accidental, it appears like caustic on the bottom of wave pool - the holographic theory considers, the reality is formed as a projection of waves from higher dimensions.

Sorry old chap, it is the "electric universe / electric comet" proponents who claim this, for the mainstrean a comet is a mixture of dirt, ice, water, ....
Absolutely no problem there, so don't try to explain with your trialities.
Just another thing you don't understand.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Trialities serve a different porpoise. The use of that concept is, to find the dimensionality of spacetime. Since it is almost always possible to use that, a fundamental process shout be multiplicative and three dimensional.
Plasma-physics is certainly your thing, so why don't you explain where the water comes from.
My claim is 'only', that conservation of number of particles is not possible in different frames of reference.

Trialities aren't conceptual problem in Aether theory, they're just less frequent in Aether foam, the the dualities (branes) or strings. The concept of Aether foam isn't based on dualities just because of foam concept. A foam can contain both strings, both flat membranes, both higher dimensional objects (mostly adjacent to the nodes of lower dimensional ones). For example, the common black hole is 6D-brane from such perspective. Every concept underlies branching to infinite number of perspectives, so that the plurality of perspectives is the most general approach here.



This means, the question about universe origin or future has no meaning in AWT. The Universe as a whole has an infinite number of pasts and futures by definition. While the branching of futures is manifested by quantum uncertainty at the Planck scale, the branching of past is manifested by polarization of microwave background at the cosmic scale.

In AWT is no fundamental process and everything (every number with exception of infinity) should have a good reason here. The 3D space is the result of subtle phenomena: the arrangement of particles in the form of kissing hyperspheres becomes most compact just only for three dimensional hyperspheres. This difference is suble, but inside of infinitelly dense environment every diference in Lagrangian function can play a significant role with respect of energy spreading.



Briefly speaking, we can see the vacuum as the most large phase of universe because the energy spreads most efectivelly/slowly just by most compact arrangement of particles, i.e. through 3D space. As we can see, the particle concept can help us to understand the dimensionality of our space-time. But this is not all - the system of five elements or E8 Lie group symmetry follows from particle model as well.

The particle model isn't limited just to Planck time - we can observe these "hunks" all the time as a foamy streaks of so called dark matter. By AWT these artifacts are closely related both to the brane cosmology, both the inflation model. They're remnants of inflation era, during which the dense spherical zones of vacuum condensed from metastable state like the supersaturated salt solution.



We can imagine this process as a condensation of matter inside of dense core (black hole), formed as a remnant of supernova explosion.

I really like your pictures, but why didn't you put them in the thread where you show your theory. I don't complain, but mega-scale cosmology isn't the right answer to 'the particle concept'.