Sargon's gravity thread

[sargon]

I would like to humbly suggest that gravity can't be unified with the current generally accepted theoretical framework. I believe that there is a fundamental error that remains unidentified. This error probably crept into things early in the 20th century and has made resolution of some fundamental questions impossible. I do not say this as a physicist, but only as an interested observer. When the mathematical framework has to be expanded to ten or eleven dimensions and cosmic inflation must be introduced to keep from wrecking the theory, I have to believe we've gotten off track.

I've gone to sleep thinking about gravity more times than I can remember. I have come to the conclusion that most, if not all, particles of matter are actually spread across the entire universe - a sort of quantum smear. What we are able to perceive or measure as the particle is only the most concentrated portion. The "dark matter" that is so sought after to produce the desired amount of gravity is the undetected part of each and every particle. I imagine that this idea would require cosmologists to rewrite a lot of theory, but it has some potential advantages. The Higg's field (or aether, if you prefer) would be understood as the undetected soup that exists in "empty" space. This is the thinned out part of all the particles. The uncertainty principle becomes clearer because all particles really are everywhere. Gravity then becomes each particles complete envelope covering the entire universe. This opens the possibility that gravity is actually an effect of interaction between particles, not a quality of fundamental particles themselves, i.e. a particle in a vacuum has no gravity.

[antoniseb]

Originally Posted by sargon

I believe that there is a fundamental error that remains unidentified. This error probably crept into things early in the 20th century and has made resolution of some fundamental questions impossible...

Hi sargon, welcome to the BAUT forum.

What you've posted in this thread is something that we normally like to keep in the "Against The Mainstream" section of our forum. You are speculating about non-mainstream views.

I can split this post off, and move to the ATM section if you'd like to discuss this idea further. Please let us know.

-A

[Jetlack]

Sargon,

Not sure about some of your theory but i agree with the general idea that we are missing someting pretty big.

I reckon GR/SR is not as fundamental as qm and the problem we have is that we are trying to connect the two in their current format as if they are equally fundamental.

[thomheg]

Originally Posted by Jetlack

Sargon,

Not sure about some of your theory but i agree with the general idea that we are missing someting pretty big.

I reckon GR/SR is not as fundamental as qm and the problem we .have is that we are trying to connect the two in their current format as if they are equally fundamental.

In a way QM and GR are opposite. There is classical physics, too. Together they form a triangle called a triality. Imagine this to have an intersection 'point'. That would be fundamental. Trialities are like opposites, but with three directions. Classical physics would be the one, GR the two and QM the three.
The reason to think so is: classical physics is about movement (what is a linear relation), GR is about second rank tensor fields and QM about particles, what are in general volumetric (or three dimensional).

[Fortis]

Originally Posted by thomheg

In a way QM and GR are opposite. There is classical physics, too. Together they form a triangle called a triality. Imagine this to have an intersection 'point'. That would be fundamental. Trialities are like opposites, but with three directions. Classical physics would be the one, GR the two and QM the three.
The reason to think so is: classical physics is about movement (what is a linear relation), GR is about second rank tensor fields and QM about particles, what are in general volumetric (or three dimensional).

This all seems very arbitrary. Classical mechanics covers motion in a 3 dimensional space. It also includes second rank tensors such as the moment of inertia tensor. General relativity also contains 4 dimensional tensors of rank 1. As for quantum mechanics, it contains scalars (your traditional wave function as per Schrodinger, as well as tensors of rank 2 if you are talking about quantising the electromagnetic field.

Your ordering seems completely arbitrary. How do you justify this?

[thomheg]

Originally Posted by Fortis

This all seems very arbitrary. Classical mechanics covers motion in a 3 dimensional space. It also includes second rank tensors such as the moment of inertia tensor. General relativity also contains 4 dimensional tensors of rank 1. As for quantum mechanics, it contains scalars (your traditional wave function as per Schrodinger, as well as tensors of rank 2 if you are talking about quantising the electromagnetic field.

Your ordering seems completely arbitrary. How do you justify this?

Thats difficult to explain. And that may not fit to this thread. But let me try and apologize in advance.
It refers to the numbers used and needed. A field like gravity is following an inverse square law, like the coulomb force. That is a complex quadratic relation and you need quaternions. To describe particles you need three components and octonions to describe them. For classical physics you need only reals or complex numbers.
Or think about space: classical physics uses a vector and that's it. Gr is about curved space and in QM they are researching vacuum fluctuations.