Yin_yang of spacetime and matter

jal

24th January 2006 - 09:04 PM

One cannot exist without the other.Yin and yang can transform into one another
Most forces in nature can be broken down into their respective yin and yang states, and the two are usually in movement rather than held in absolute stasis.
Yin Yang is a way of thinking about phenomena, and a way to describe how things function and interact with each other in the Universe.

(Note: If my images do not download it's because my web sit is overloaded. Try later to see the images.)
SPACE AND TIME ARE YIN_YANG.

The two are similar and are one.
user posted image

A SPACETIME UNIT
PARTICLES FIT INTO SPACETIME LIKE A HAND INTO A GLOVE--YIN_YANG.
user posted image

My presentations
Inverse Square Law
and
ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY
attempted to present a very complex subject in a very simple manner.
I have simplified by showing that it is possible to use strings (1d) to generate a 2d surface and by rotating/spinning/twisting it at right angle to the 2d surface it is possible to generate our 3d universe.
It is not necessary to have more than 2d to generate a 3d.
However, it could require 10 mathematical dimension, 2 holes, 3 holes, 6 holes or even 12 holes.
Each of those spinning strings/surfaces are connected by one point to the 2d structure which has knotted up when the 3d structure was formed.
user posted image

The 'Big Bang Instanton" was a portal from the 2d universe. The "spinning" of these 2d instantons at right angle to the 2d surface created our 3d spacetime. Our universe did not start from one instanton as postulated by Hawkins and others but rather of a whole lot of instantons.
All of these instantons are still with us making the structure of spacetime. It is a very stable and symmetrical structure that has lasted for 14 BY.
Instantons which could not be incorporated into the structure of spacetime (10^80) became "the glove on the hand".
Since Hawkins and others have demonstrated that "Black Holes" have a 2d signatures then by taking the logic one step further we can postulate that particles have managed to open up a portal to the 2d universe. The 3d structure has been flatten to 2d.

Everyone is trying to find the shape of a unit of spacetime.

Everyone is stuck on the problem of "gravity" and the "Higgs particle/field". (The answer could be the connection to the knotted 2d space)

For an Images of loop quantum gravity look at Carlo Rovelli's page. It's similar to my 2d presentation.

Try interpenetrating tetrahedral by Chris Quigg, to see how he visualizes the organization of particles.

See the Twistor Strings Workshop and see some of the work in progress by Edward Witten, Roger Penrose, Michael Atiyah and others.

user posted image

My "spot" is still a viable and plausible candidate.

One man was able to move the sun to its proper place in the universe.
It will take the combined efforts of SUSY, BRANES, AND LQG to move spacetime to its proper place in the universe. Each has part of the answer.
Some of the properties of particles need to be re-evaluated since they may in fact be properties of spacetime. (Yin_Yang)

The results/findings will be greater than what I have postulated.

I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD JUST LEAVE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD.
WE CAN CARRY A DISCUSSION IN YOUR THREAD.

JAL

Zephir

24th January 2006 - 09:44 PM

Wery interesting, I'll try to examine it. Concerning your attempts to express the structure of multidimensional recursive structure of vacuum by some geometrical way it can be interesting for You the recursive structure of vortexes inside of Bose-Einstein condensates, which enables to express the elastic structure just in 3D as the system of adjacent closely packed spheres(?).

You can continue in discussion of such model here

amrit

24th January 2006 - 10:35 PM

Hi jal. in thaoism space and matter are yin and yang, what you say is not exact, you can read that in every book of taoism, matter is female (Yin), space male (yang)

yes, space and matter are similar to Ying and Yang

QS as a basic packet of energy is TAO,

and what is time here:

time is eternal dance of Ying And Yang (of space and matter)

TIME IS MOTION

comparing above make sense for me
In China they have been clever enough 3000 years ago to know that universe is eternal, no beginning, no end,
we are still discussing about beginning ?????!!!!!

amrit

Zephir

24th January 2006 - 10:43 PM

QUOTE (amrit+Jan 25 2006, 01:35 AM)

In China they have been clever enough 3000 years ago to know that universe is eternal, no beginning, no end.

I can say, the time is eternal dance of energy and matter or the dance of the kinetic and potential energy by the same way, but it's not so exact, because it's a very special state of Universe, which can be described by the wave equation recursively. The time is indirectly proportional not just the motion, but its total energy density at each point (i.e. both the kinetic, both the potential energy together). Just the deformation of it retards the time, dear Amrit.

The common behavior of space can by quite different, outside of our understanding the energy/motion concept.

amrit

24th January 2006 - 10:48 PM

zephir i'm a soul and you are intelligence

it is a joke, after all this mind dis. maybe a joke is fine

jal

24th January 2006 - 10:59 PM

You should have gone and looked at Twistor Strings Workshop.
There is a whole lot of curent info and ....
jal

fivedoughnut

25th January 2006 - 05:57 AM

With particles in mind; my picture of things address time to be inversely proportional to vacuolar deformations, created either by acceleration or gravity.

Both affect the vacuolar boundary to singularity distance, and is a manifestation of
harmonic restoration with regards to its propagating interdimensional wave flow.

amrit

26th January 2006 - 01:19 PM

amrit

Zephir

26th January 2006 - 01:32 PM

QUOTE (jal+Jan 25 2006, 01:59 AM)

You should have gone and looked at Twistor Strings Workshop

JAL, I already know about it, as it's just a convergence to my N-dimensional vortex model. The superstring theory wouldn't converge to any usable result (being too general) without merging with the Twistor theory (being low-dimensional) - and vice-versa.

Sometimes it could more effective for understanding to have it's own idea - after all, it's much more fun.

jal

26th January 2006 - 04:31 PM

Twistor Strings Workshop by those prominent minds all had questions.
You should be giving your answers to them.
jal

Guest_Steve

29th January 2006 - 05:44 PM

Jal I really like your model of voids being the structure for our perception of "virtual" matter, but what allows your model to progress in time? If time as armit likes to describe and how I like to think of it as the motion of matter or em waves through a static medium would there then be any gap in the wave packet? I'm not sure if I'm getting my idea across so think about it like this, instead of individual sections of time that say a beam of light travels along why not have its rotation progress continuously along its axis of propagation which would allow its spiral wave to have no distinction between quanta of time?

I dunno I think I'm starting to get dumber with this physics stuff

jal

29th January 2006 - 07:37 PM

Hi Guest_Steve!

Join the party. The more you learn .... the more question that you get.
Remember, that the "spot" was built up from first principle... a unit of space and time. (an instanton)
If you look closer at the spinning Stellated Tetrahedron/ you will notice that it is not stellated nor is it spinning in the third available direction. It should. Spinning might not be the proper terminology to describe what is happening to this "void". Maybe throbbing/pulsating/beating. .. which is determined by how the "spot"/soliton/instanton/ can be a packed/arranged without having any of the lens traveling farther that 2 pi.
user posted image

Anything that moves farther than 2 pi and for a longer duration than 2 pi is enjoying the pleasure of "moving" and "time". Such as a photon traveling in a straight line through the "void". Each of the 4 "lens" can/must have a spin around an x,y,z, axis to sustain the 3d of spacetime.

QUOTE

...why not have its rotation progress continuously along its axis of propagation which would allow its spiral wave to have no distinction between quanta of time?...

Could the movement of these lenses be coordinated so that there is a propagation is a spiral by a photon?
I would say yes.
Could the movement of these lens be coordinated so that we perceive the "wave" nature of a photon?
I would say yes.
user posted image

If the definition of a unit of space and a unit of time was change then in the following picture you can see the uncertainty of "foaming vacuum". it.
user posted image

Those who do not believe that there can be a structure to "space" have a lot more to explain than I who believes that there is a packed/organized structure which we have not detected.
The math will determine who has a representation/image of what is happening.
Right now I'm following the thread "Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory".
I think that what I have presented is a good candidate. I have not broken any laws of physic and given a possible explanation for a few unexplained observations. (ie. what makes 3d?)
I guess everyone else figures that their model is the best one.

Review what I have been saying at
Inverse Square Law
and
ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY
I'll do my best to explain my presentation/approach. If it helps with your approach...good!!

jal

30th January 2006 - 02:26 AM

Correction

I was not paying attention. The following should read:

QUOTE

If you look closer at the spinning HYPERBOLIC Stellated Tetrahedron you will notice that it is not HYPERBOLIC nor is it spinning in the third available direction.

jal

Guest_Steve

30th January 2006 - 03:42 AM

So this spin we think of is the manifestation of the deformation of space-time by the underlying void that is pulsating (morphing). So my next logical question is what is this void you speculate comprised of? Is it the collapse of dimensional steps, like a boundary type or membrane or am I getting off track again?

Zephir

30th January 2006 - 04:11 AM

QUOTE (Guest_Steve+Jan 30 2006, 06:42 AM)

what is this void you speculate comprised of? Is it the collapse of dimensional steps, like a boundary type or membrane or am I getting off track again?

It behaves like elastic superfluid, formed nearly exclusively just by the recursive torsion vibrations/vortices of itself (similar to the common E-B condensate, but multidimensional). The picture bellow describes the fundamental vibrations of the simple particle. And yes, it's heavily quantized - try to bring-up, the perimeter of bubbles can be formed just by the integral number of wave periods by such a way, such super-fluid "scrunches" or "creaks" under deformation. Here's no energy dissipation due the non-elastic deformations, even the quite subtle vibrations are propagating at long distances without energy loss.

The spin quantity corresponds the sum of the torsion character of the vibration, is always 1/2, as the one half of perimeter motion is separated (i.e. projected) to the tensor motion along radius. The helicity of such motion can be both positive, both negative an it corresponds the particle charge. Here are other aspects of such model, for example the vibrations are forming "convolution layers", the character of vibrations is mutually repeating. Most of simple particles are forming so called generations, just occupying the different subsequent layers (denoted by the blue, green, yellow and red color on the animation bellow). It means, the heavy electron (i.e. muon) is just the other bunch of vibration between the different trinity (green, yellow, red) of the subsequent space convolution levels with compare to the normal electron (blue, green, yellow), thus differing by the radius/energy density, i.e. mass, but not the internal topology. Is it clear how it works?

user posted image

$user posted image$

It means, the vacuum behaves like highly elastic compressible jelly or elastic foam, formed by the particles of less compressible jelly recursively. After all, the atoms of super-fluid helium behaves by the similar way, because the orbitals of it are elastic too.

Despite the fact, we are formed just by the vibration of vacuum, the macroscopic properties of it are surprisingly classical, but it should be always remembered, the vibrations of it are realized by the surface of bubbles/vortex perimeter nearly exclusively. Such surface effects is a quite common in quantum world, as the most energy of atom nuclei are concentrated at the surface too, for example. Even the water is able to transfer most of the energy just by the water surface (the underwater waves are rather subtle). The introducing some energy just leads to the vorticity/energy density increasing, similar to the turbulent super-fluid. I'm explaining some of the vacuum properties with respect to the light spreading at the different frequencies here, or here, for example.

You can found a number of other applets, animations a demos in my list of former submissions after registration.

Zephir

30th January 2006 - 05:17 AM

I'm explaining my model here for long time, an over one thousand of posts were submitted here - so I can expect some level of understanding, at least...

Now I'll give you a two following questions, which can determine, whether you did understand the main principles of the Aether Wave theory and the vacuum structure properties sufficiently.

The 1st question:

As you probably know, the neutrino particle differs in some aspects from the other leptons. For example, its spin is always oriented towards to its motion direction with compare of electron. Can you explain such effect qualitatively?

You can use your own theory or M-theory or whatever, of course - if you want and if you feel, it's strong enough to explain such behavior easily, of course.

The 2nd question:

The second question is slightly more difficult. As you probably know, the neutrino particle exists in three forms - with negative, positive and zero charge, the calibration field theory of the Standard model explains it using the complex matrix math. The Heim's theory predicts some zero charged electron too. This is a reason, I believe, why it's mistaken in exact mass predictions for hadrons and more complicated particles.

Can you explain qualitatively, why the neutral electron is much less probable, than neutral neutrino using the Aether Wave theory (or your own theory and/or some other one, of course)?

jal

30th January 2006 - 05:41 AM

hi Guest_Steve...Zephir!
Okay.... my approach is different... maybe it can help with your ideas.

QUOTE

... is the manifestation of the deformation of space-time by the underlying void that is pulsating (morphing)....

Close...

the pulsating "lens" are deforming the "voids".
I started with a instanton "shape" It must have some rules of compaction that will reflect our "spacetime.
Remember, that the "spot" was built up from first principle... a unit of space and time. (an instanton)

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

... is the manifestation of the deformation of space-time by the underlying void that is pulsating (morphing)....

Close...

You can use a "cliche"... call it space.
In a soliton, it is the volume that cannot be reached by the standing wave/soliton. The "lens" are occupying the remaining area. That is the undetected structure of spacetime. In due time, experimental data will make more and more theories untenable. (Maybe this approach)
Maybe, the "spot"/structure of spacetime will be determined to be the cause of "Higgs field", mass, gravity....

Quite frankly, I do not know at this stage how particles would look if my approach was right. I think that it is a plausable candidate in LQG.
To me, if my presentation is anywhere close to reality, then "particles have got to be able to fit into space "comfortably". There has to be a "Yin_yang.

I'll let the math decide which is the "right" shape. (Maybe, I'll be able to say,"I was right".
There are too many candidates out there in too many theories.

Z... If you want to let the readers go to your presentations for a different view... Just say that ... leave your presentation out.

I want to be able to make my own presentation.

I don't want to argue with your presentation. I'm aware of it.

Z... you're finally seeing some of what I'm saying ..."It behaves like elastic superfluid..."
"...we are formed just by the vibration of vacuum..."
I say, movement of the "spot".
(Get rid of the words that have preconceived connotations that give presumptions to your ideas.)
You are presenting "particles".
I am presenting what the "spacetime" structure would look like if it was "something". (from Hawkins instanton.) (A Hex. packing)
I have speculated that the "spot" might have some influence on the "visible" universe.

Be ready for it.

There are a lot of theories out there. Even the "Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory" is proposing a structure to spacetime.
I'm not the one who will put it all together. I don't have enough brain power or enough resources at my disposal.
jal

Zephir

30th January 2006 - 06:08 AM

QUOTE (jal+Jan 30 2006, 08:41 AM)

you're finally seeing some of what I'm saying ..."It behaves like elastic superfluid..."

I can see, You're a clever boy - it's obvious, you'll be able to explain my questions using your insights in brief. You can ignore my presentation, of course.

BTW When did you use the "superfluid" or even "elastic superfluid" word in your posts? Saying isn't enough, as I've no a telepathic skills.

QUOTE (jal+Jan 30 2006, 08:41 AM)

You are presenting "particles".

Nope. I'm presenting an inertial waves, which are behaving like particles, in certain aspect under certain conditions. I've named my theory Aether Wave theory, not the Aether Particle theory, as I've any equation for describing the particles. This is a reason, why we have always to use some continuum model at the end.

jal

30th January 2006 - 05:37 PM

Hi WaterBreath...fivedoughnut...Excal...TRoc...amrit...

I want to show that we are expressing things differently but are saying the same thing.

My "spot" agrees with your innitial ideas/concepts.
We only disagree as we progress with our presentations.
I think that we all have the same starting concept.

I have used some representative quotes from all of you.
WaterBreath...

QUOTE

So the units may refer to the boundary surface of a three-dimensional volume, rather than to an actual volume of 3D space

"a spot"

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

So the units may refer to the boundary surface of a three-dimensional volume, rather than to an actual volume of 3D space

"a spot"

...I have one thought on the pi * wavelength one.... Since a wavelength is sort of a "diameter" of a sine wave, pi*wavelength would be pi*d, or the "circumference": the actual distance travelled along the curve of the wave. Not sure how this would be significant though....

" a spot"

fivedoughnut...

QUOTE

...What I've just stated is dimensional collapse of one thing into another....

2d--->3d--->2d--->etc

Excal...

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

...What I've just stated is dimensional collapse of one thing into another....

2d--->3d--->2d--->etc

Excal...
...The space vibration is not able to progress in total numbers of space magnitude, while the time vibration is unable to progress in time magnitude, because of the vibrations. It's as if one is marching in place space-wise, while the other is marching in place time-wise, but relative to one another they are moving at unit speed; that is, since one is progressing space-wise, and the other is progressing time-wise, relatively they are progessing space/time-wise, at c-speed....

"movement of the spot"

TRoc...

QUOTE

...Thus, from "First Principles", there should be a predictive pattern for the masses that we find in our "standard particle" line-up....

"Yin_Yang"

amrit...

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

...Thus, from "First Principles", there should be a predictive pattern for the masses that we find in our "standard particle" line-up....

"Yin_Yang"

amrit...
...Universe is composed by one energy...

"There are 10^80 errors in the assembly process."

As you have read in my presentation, I used the internal structure of a soliton to express the "instanton". I then, arranged them in a close packed hex. 2d structure/membrane. I then went to 3d by spinning at right angle to the 2d membrane. All that would be necessary is to one "spot" go 3d to create a domino effect.
The result was a that the unoccupied space resembled a HYPERBOLIC Stellated Tetrahedron.
The "Big Bang" can be re expressed as the creation of the 3d from a 2d sheet by the "spin". (domino effect)
The "Black Holes" can be re expressed as the surpression of the spin which created the 3d. (A 2d surface/sphere in our 3d universe)
The result is that there is a complete "energy cycle". 2d--->3d--->2d--->etc.
The "cosmic rays" could form part of that cycle.

Those are the similarities that I see in what we have been saying.

Jal

jal

30th January 2006 - 11:45 PM

Hi Excal...
One of the biggest questions for a structured spacetime is, "Why can't we detect it?"
I believe that you could have the possible answer. (at least one of them)

QUOTE

...The space vibration is not able to progress in total numbers of space magnitude, while the time vibration is unable to progress in time magnitude, because of the vibrations. It's as if one is marching in place space-wise, while the other is marching in place time-wise, but relative to one another they are moving at unit speed; that is, since one is progressing space-wise, and the other is progressing time-wise, relatively they are progessing space/time-wise, at c-speed....

1. I cannot find a weakness in the logic leading to this statement. (Anyone??)
Therefore, if this is true then the following would apply:
We/particles are at a position A. We look around and take an inventory of our surroundings. We then move (in time or in space) to position B and take an inventory of our surroundings.
Guess what? Everything is the same.
So that would answer why we can't detect it.
Therefore, the big question is, "what can we do to try to detect it?"

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Waiting.....

jal

Zephir

31st January 2006 - 01:53 PM

A lot of nonsences, no answers, no understanding, as usually....

OK, here's cheat (©zephir@atlas.cz)....

The 1st question:

The neutrino differs in some aspects from other leptons. For example, its spin is always oriented towards to its motion direction with compare of electron. Can you explain such effect qualitatively?

The 2nd question:

The neutrino exists in three forms - with negative, positive and zero charge. The Heim's theory predicts some zero charged electron too. Can you explain qualitatively, why the neutral electron is much less probable, than neutral neutrino?

user posted image

jal

31st January 2006 - 03:36 PM

Still Waiting..... "What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?"
jal

Zephir

31st January 2006 - 04:23 PM

QUOTE (jal+Jan 31 2006, 06:36 PM)

What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?

The inhomogeneous structure of vacuum can be revealed easily for example by the energetic light, as the vacuum behaves like negative refraction index material with respect of X-ray and gamma ray. At even higher energies the light exhibits the torsion dispersion (turbulence dissipation) of such inhomogeneities like fluid formed by the individual particles (i.e. gamma and cosmic ray materialization).

jal

31st January 2006 - 05:02 PM

Still Waiting..... "What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?"
jal

Zephir

31st January 2006 - 05:38 PM

QUOTE (jal+Jan 31 2006, 08:02 PM)

Still Waiting.....

The mass wave can be considered to be a special case of complexity wave. It means, even the evolution is directed by the wave equation by the same way, as the evolution of mass (i.e. motion). The strong information density (i.e. complexity) leads to the total reflection from the inner information space boundary, i.e. formation of singularity. Such total reflection effect can be eliminated by the roughing, undulation of such surface, i.e. decreasing the complexity gradient. I believe, the black hole can be provoked to the radiation by introducing of some energy into event horizont, it's a way how to gather energy from it. It requires some input energy and interaction, indeed.

It means, if you don't understand something, Jal, kindly ask me for details...

Waiting is not enough, if you're looking for understanding.

jal

31st January 2006 - 05:46 PM

QUOTE

Still Waiting..... "What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?"....

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Still Waiting..... "What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?"....

...Until we can do these calculations, to the accuracy of QM calculations, all our ideas are just blowing in the wind. Excal...

jal

Zephir

31st January 2006 - 05:58 PM

QUOTE (jal+Jan 31 2006, 08:46 PM)

Until we can do these calculations, to the accuracy of QM calculations, all our ideas are just blowing in the wind.

Nope, Jal, I needn't to know or even use any math to describe, what happen. For example, you need just to understand the first class lever principle to predict, what will happen, when I'll press one arm of it. From this point of view, I can see the future form it's quantum uncertainty - it demonstrates, how the complexity is related to the time. If you'll be clever sufficiently, you can predict the future in detail.

The math is just a more advanced, deeper complexity level, required for bright and more exact observation of the future. If you'll use a more complexity beam, you'll see more from the future by the same way, as you'll see form the vaccum using a X-ray/gamma beam.

It means, I need any math for the approximate explanation of space-time behavior by the same way, as I need any math for approximate prediction of the lever behavior.

From certain point of view, the math is just a formalization of such understanding. If you have no physical model of reality, you cannot derive the math model of it. The math is "just" the mechanical tool for formalization of understanding of reality, not for understanding itself. Moreover, the math space has a very simmilar behavior like the physical space, it has a tendency to complicate itself.

If you have too general math model, it simply means, you don't understand the model subject. This is a reason, why Mr. Heim was able to compute the mass of electron, whereas the M-theory not....

jal

31st January 2006 - 06:07 PM

Still Waiting.....

"What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?".... jal

Zephir

31st January 2006 - 06:16 PM

QUOTE (jal+Jan 31 2006, 09:07 PM)

What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?

Nothing, the fundamental experiments with the energy dispersion in vacuum was done a long time before.

We have "just" to explain it by the introducing of the structured spacetime concept. We have a lot of experiments which are detecting the invariant light speed. We just have any consistent explanation for all these effects.

I shouldn't ask more experiments, if you're not able the explain a lot of existing ones...

The blindfold experiments are rather expensive.

jal

31st January 2006 - 06:22 PM

Still waiting...What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?

QUOTE

...all our ideas are just blowing in the wind. Excal...

jal

Zephir

31st January 2006 - 06:31 PM

QUOTE (jal+Jan 31 2006, 09:22 PM)

...What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime...

Define the meaning of word "DETECT", please....

After all, the electrons were "detected" too. But nobody have seen this, just the different manifestations of electrons under different conditions...

A good criterion of existence can be a practical utilization of vacuum structures, at least in some kind of quantum computation. I believe, we are needing a better models of reality, not the better experiments (compare to the Heim results).

For example, the quantum mechanic has growing importance in pharmacy for ab-initio computing of drugs structures ("in-silco" chemistry).

For example, if we derive TOE, which will be able to predict all the existing experimental results with the high accuracy, we will need to make any new experiments/detections at all. It can save us a lot of money, indeed.

But my feeling is, the current physic is like some little child - they just want to play/experiment/model - but not to really understand the reality. It's very hostile to the most explanation attempts.

jal

31st January 2006 - 06:37 PM

I'm still waiting...

What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?

QUOTE

...Until we can do these calculations, to the accuracy of QM calculations, all our ideas are just blowing in the wind....

jal

Zephir

31st January 2006 - 06:54 PM

Well, we should derive an exact math model of such structured spacetime and use it for the calculation of the properties of the hundreds of elementary particles and structures which was measured with the high precisions a long time ago.

At the case of success, the structured spacetime concept is OK without any further experiments. We have done a lot of experiment already, we have a myriads of experimental data unexplained.

At first is necessary to study and fully understand the concept of models, which are having a better predication ability then our current models, i.e. Yilmaz's and Heim's theories.

Concerning the LHC experiment planned with connection of the Higgs boson detection, it can be considered to be a direct experimental verification of the basic spacetime structure existence. But I've problem, as I feel, such experiments aren't very safe. They should be carried outside the Earth, at the free space, at least, as we have no knowledge about the real vacuum structure, about all the resonances and side effects available here.

For example, the cold fusion was "theoretically impossible" with the many valid figures of precision, too. Now we can see it in the labs during the secondary degree student experiments. We can see each tiny explosion. The phase transition of vacuum is not expected to be a quite "tiny spark".

I'd like to have a better model of vacuum structure at first, then successful, but very last experimental proof of it.

jal

31st January 2006 - 07:13 PM

QUOTE

...the structured spacetime concept is OK without any further experiments....

no such luck!

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

...the structured spacetime concept is OK without any further experiments....

no such luck!
...Concerning the LHC experiment planned with connection of the Higgs boson detection, it can be considered to be a direct experimental verification of the basic spacetime structure existence ....

Can someone involved confirm this statement?
I'm still waiting...

Let's see if there are other opinions/inputs to...

What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?
jal

Zephir

31st January 2006 - 07:25 PM

QUOTE (jal+Jan 31 2006, 10:13 PM)

What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?

The Heim's theory looks pretty well, being able to compute some lightest particles mass and other properties with 6 valid figures. It's based on such structure of vacuum.

If some theory predicts the results, which were obtained a quite independently with such high precision, it's a excelent experimental success and proof of it, indeed. I need any better experimental confirmation of such concept, the six valid figures are enough for me.

Now we have to study and understand such theory and its concept at first in deepest level available, just using a computers, not to carry out an another - and potentially risky - experiments.

jal

31st January 2006 - 07:35 PM

QUOTE

The Hiem's theory looks pretty well, being able to compute the some lightest particles with 6 valid figures. It's based on such structure of vacuum.

From where I'm standing it could also be "the math" of my presentation.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The Hiem's theory looks pretty well, being able to compute the some lightest particles with 6 valid figures. It's based on such structure of vacuum.

From where I'm standing it could also be "the math" of my presentation.
....all our ideas are just blowing in the wind....

I'm still waiting...

Let's see if there are other opinions/inputs to...

What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?
jal

Zephir

31st January 2006 - 07:37 PM

The simple repeating will not help You, Jal, by the same way, as it didn't helped to Amrit. But you can be qualified as the spamer, instead.

Face it...

jal

31st January 2006 - 08:11 PM

What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?
jal

Zephir

31st January 2006 - 10:03 PM

QUOTE (jal+Jan 31 2006, 11:11 PM)

What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?

Jal - it has no sense to collect some proof, detections and theories for the naive and selfish people, which believe, they will found a better theory from scratch.

The same problem with the Heim's theory, the most advanced theory available. Such theory can be simply ignored despite its result for many years, if it enables to sponsore the light-headed existence of the other people.

Such lobby problem is, the public feedback of science investments is difficult.

jal

31st January 2006 - 10:19 PM

I'm still going to wait....and listen...maybe they will have a different opinion...

What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?

jal

bee

1st February 2006 - 12:02 AM

Hi jal,

Maybe try proving something exists in space first!

Thought, if we take a plastic bottle on earth remove/compress all the air out of the bottle and seal it with no air inside. Fly the bottle into space open it to let empty space fill it, seal the bottle and simply squeeze the bottle, if the bottle has pressure something is there.

later...

Micheal

1st February 2006 - 12:41 AM

wth how would that work ? An empty bottle filling with empty space? well first of all space is full of particles that just float around however its just not very dense i.e. solar wind and other stuff and isn’t the collapse of structures on earth that r so called vacuums due to pressure differences

Montec

1st February 2006 - 01:06 AM

Hi jal

You may not be able to detect "structured space-time" directly. You may have to use an indirect approach. I believe that in the mathematics of QM there are solutions that are thrown out because there are no particles that have said QM calculated characteristics. The magnetic monopole for instance. By using what is not allowed by nature a description of "structured space-time" may be found. This is not an easy task.

jal

1st February 2006 - 01:25 AM

Gentlemen....
Thank You... !!!
Yes... The magnitude of the problem is recognized... but we must address it.
There must be enough brain power out there to propose ways of detecting the structure of space.
Otherwise....wind....
If we come up with something ....Maybe someone with the assets will undertake to allocate some resources to do the experiment...

jal

1st February 2006 - 01:51 AM

Z has already given his opinion of these proposed experiment.
Can the rest of you give me your honest evaluation?
Could we detect the structure of space by these experiments?
experiment
Let's develop more ideas.
Jal

jal

1st February 2006 - 04:44 PM

The Superstring people are not looking for an organized structured spacetime .

If the next cycle of experiment detect anything then everyone will be claiming it to be "my particle" for "my theory". (The Scientific study in Fermi and SLAC, (CERN))
Guess who will win the battle? It will not be the people who are saying that there is an organized structure to spacetime.

Go and read this link to refresh your memory.

braneworlds

QUOTE

Braneworlds
Pretend you lived on your computer screen and could only move on that two dimensional surface . The computer exists in three space dimensions but you can only move on a two dimensional subspace made by the screen, so the spacetime that you experience would look like three dimensions (two space plus time) rather than four.
That's sort of the idea in a braneworld higher dimensional theory. Our observed four dimensional spacetime is like the computer screen, a subspace of some bigger space that we can't see because all matter and forces are constrained to move (mainly) on our subspace, or brane (as in membrane).The total space is called the bulk and the subspace or brane on which we would live is called the brane.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

... This duality symmetry has led to an interesting proposal for pre-Big Bang cosmology where the stringy Universe starts out flat, cold and very large instead of curved, hot and very small . This early Universe is unstable and starts to collapse and contract until it reaches the self dual point, where it heats up and starts to expand to give the expanding Universe we observe today. One advantage to this model is that it incorporates the very stringy behavior of T duality and the self dual point, so it is a very inherently stringy cosmology.

See... good elf.... Neil Farbstein...I DID NOT INVENT FLATLAND

Geee... that sounds very similar to what I have been saying

With a few little modification...

QUOTE

Light is made of electromagnetic radiation, and in a braneworld model, the charges and the fields should propagate only on the brane. So there wouldn't be any way to probe the extra dimensions in the bulk by using light, even if the extra dimensions were large.

Up to the size of a hair???

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Up to the size of a hair???
Braneworld models are conceptually different from compactified Kaluza-Klein models because they don't attempt to derive nongravitational forces from the gravitational oscillations in the extra dimensions. On the contrary, if the extra dimensions are large, the gravitational oscillations have to die out quickly in those directions, so that we can't detect them. There are still Kaluza-Klein modes of oscillation in the extra dimensions, but because they couple through gravity, and gravity is mostly confined to the brane, they are effectively invisible to our world on the brane.

What a bummer...

QUOTE

Braneworld models in general are very different from superstring Kaluza-Klein compactification models because they don't require there to be so many steps between the Planck scale and the electroweak scale. The huge difference between the Planck scale and the electroweak scale is called the gauge hierarchy problem.
Supersymmetry was originally interesting to particle physicists because it could address this problem. But some braneworld models need supersymmetry for the brane geometry to be stable.
If supersymmetry is detected at next-generation particle physics experiments, then the details of the supersymmetric physics will have something to say, hopefully, about any underlying superstring model and whether there is Kaluza-Klein compactification of extra space dimensions into some tiny rolled up internal space, or whether we are all living in the four dimensional equivalent of being flies stuck on the wall of a higher dimensional Universe. .

Gee... my presentation said that we could be living on a lower knotted 2d.
I must have read things wrong...

To make things worst... I made some of them spin to make a 3d universe...

Geee... it must be because of my simple nature

To get back to the problem...

What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?

Everybody is looking for "particles or fields". It will only be later that someone will realize that there has to be a structured spacetime.

Later should be now.

What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?

Jal

Zephir

1st February 2006 - 05:13 PM

QUOTE (jal+Feb 1 2006, 07:44 PM)

The Superstring people are not looking for an organized structured spacetime

Well, technically speaking, the space-time has no insintric internal structure hardwired into it. It just deforms like common space under N-dimensional torsion deformation, similar to the elastic foam. If you're jumping on it, it makes some torsion deformation. As such torsion vibration has it's own inertia, it behaves like solid ring, making the twisty motion - your spring bed is making torsions, as it's the only way, how it can manifest some inertia at the certain place.

user posted image

It means, here are no springs, no vacuoles, no quantum loops, even no hidden dimensions built in in the space - just the density inhomogeneities and mutually perpendicular torsion deformation of it, which are behaving as the vibration lattice formed by the Poverball gyroscopes. If you stop such gyroscopes, the whole lattice will collapse like cotton batting, as it contains a (nearly) no mass by itself. Just the inertia of the internal energy, it formed just by the deformation of itself.

jal

1st February 2006 - 05:40 PM

I thought that yesterday you had your chance to say your piece.
Do not bring your theory into my thread,
jal

Zephir

1st February 2006 - 05:53 PM

QUOTE (jal+Feb 1 2006, 08:40 PM)

Do not bring your theory into my thread

Why not? You shouldn't to create it on public server, after than.

jal

1st February 2006 - 05:55 PM

Montec

1st February 2006 - 06:03 PM

Hi jal

Not sure if the two experiments would work. The time that the particle is experiencing was not taken into consideration. IE the frequency that the particle emits is based on its relativistic speed.

jal

1st February 2006 - 06:10 PM

Thanks Montec!

I'm also unsure. (blinker, I guess).
jal

jal

1st February 2006 - 06:52 PM

I guess that this is my way of getting all of you to think about finding ways to detect an organized structured spacetime.

Look at:
Braneworld

QUOTE

They considered a flat bulk geometry in (4+d)-dimensions, in which d dimensions are compact with radius (toroidal topology). The 4D Planck mass and the (4+d)-dimensional Planck mass , the gravitational scale of the extra dimensional theory, are related by . Gravity deviates from Newton's law only on scales smaller than ; hence, since gravity is tested only down to sizes of around a millimetre, could be as large as a fraction of a millimetre . Notice, however, that in the ADD models, more than one extra dimension is required for agreement with experiments. The case d=1 is excluded as the corresponding dimension would directly alter Newton's law on solar system scales.

Pursuing such ideas further, Randall and Sundrum considered non-flat, i.e. warped, bulk geometries. In their models, the bulk is a slice of anti-de Sitter space-time, i.e. a space-time with a negative cosmological constant . Perhaps of more interest from a cosmological viewpoint is the so-called Randall-Sundrum type II (RSII) scenario, consisting of a single brane with positive tension embedded an anti-de Sitter 5D space-time. A remarkable feature of this brane model is the modification of the expansion rate of the Universe before the nucleosynthesis era. While in standard cosmology the expansion rate scales with the energy density as , this dependence becomes at very high energies in brane cosmology. This behaviour may have drastic consequences on early Universe phenomena such as inflation and the generation of the baryon asymmetry.

Jal
ps the formulas did not copy

amrit

2nd February 2006 - 12:45 PM

if you agree that with cklocks we measure time, space-time can not have a granular structure, with clocks we do not measure grains
space have granular structure,
time is motion into space

amrit

jal

2nd February 2006 - 05:11 PM

Hi amrit...
I have been looking at your postings... I see where you are coming from.
I used the latest information.... time and space are an indistinguishable unit... It is, Yin_Yang they are not separated.
What I do separate is the observed. The structure of spacetime is at the speed of light. What we observe is what we call time, which is at less than the speed of light. What we observe is particles doing their thing.
You have read what I have been saying, therefore, from your point of view, your approach,
What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?
The real structure of spacetime cannot be rolled up, curled up and out of sight just because it is impossible to do a math. model.
After all, even the math. models are conferring structured topology, some cause/effects on our understanding of particles. They are conferring too may causes/effect and that is why they are trying to hide those effects, that structured topology under the rug/dimensions.
Why should the unseen dimensions have a structured topology? Why should we not have a structured topology? It is not logical. It is magic?

What can we do to try to detect the structured spacetime?
Jal
See my presentations at:
Inverse Square Law
and
ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY

jal

2nd February 2006 - 06:32 PM

Important note for all!....
Do you want to be a "math. kid?"
Read the following pages:
by Gerard 't Hooft

QUOTE

It should be possible, these days, to collect all knowledge you need from the internet. Problem then is, there is so much junk on the internet. Is it possible to weed out those very rare pages that may really be of use? I know exactly what should be taught to the beginning student.

by Warren Siegel, High energy physics from easy to hard

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

by Warren Siegel, High energy physics from easy to hard
This story is about the impressions many people have about physics, and how they differ from the real thing. (See also Are you a quack?) In particular, it is also about high energy physics, the most fundamental part of physics, and the misconceptions of it held even by many students of physics.

yep!!! ... We could all be wrong.

Jal

amrit

2nd February 2006 - 11:51 PM

hi jal

my understanding is that space-time is only a math model and do not exists in the universe, i see time as a motion: time = motion

this understanding of time opens new perspectives into cosmology:
the concept of space-time is developed into the concept of space-matter in which there is constant stream of motion
the arena, the stage of the universe is space-matter where time is motion
universe is composed out of one energy that appears in two basic forms:
matter (Em) and space (Es)
energy of matter and energy of space are in a equilibrium (symmetry)
Em = Es
mass m and density of space D are in equilibrium
D = m x G
the universe as a space-matter phenomena is in symmetry, in a dynamic equilibrium

so the beginning of the universe is out of question
universe is eternal, energy can not be created and not destroyed

amrit

jal

3rd February 2006 - 12:13 AM

Hi!
I think that I've said before that your initial/start concept is not outrageous.
It goes different as it develops.

QUOTE

energy of matter and energy of space are in a equilibrium (symmetry)

This is where I expanded that statement and actually made a Yin_Yang model.
You have read what I have been saying so there is no need to repeat.
So the crucial answer has to be found for you, me, and anyone who proposes that spacetime is something. (We are outnumbered. We are a minority.)
Can you make a model of your concept that does not bring in new physic?
If it does, then you must be able to support your "new Physic". Unfortunately, you will have to use mathematical explanations that others will be able to look at and agree or disagree.
Everything would be much easier if:
we could do something to try to detect the structured spacetime?

Jal

jal

3rd February 2006 - 03:45 AM

Look this over. Would it reveal the structured spacetime?
Quantum gravity for real

QUOTE

If successful, the test -- which is based on "loop quantum gravity" -- would be the first ever experimental evidence for quantum gravity.

jal

Zephir

3rd February 2006 - 03:04 PM

QUOTE (jal+Feb 3 2006, 06:45 AM)

QUOTE

If successful, the test which is based on "loop quantum gravity" would be the first ever experimental evidence for quantum gravity.

The so called dark matter can be considered to be the evidence of hidden dimensions too....

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

If successful, the test which is based on "loop quantum gravity" would be the first ever experimental evidence for quantum gravity.

The so called dark matter can be considered to be the evidence of hidden dimensions too....

The LQG theory is ignoring such concept, and such results should be interpreted with the super-string theory as well with caution, as none theory with exception of Heim's/Yilmaz's theory gives some testable predictions.

It means, both the LQG theory, both the M-theory are such general, so they can "explain" nearly everything.

(from the article) However, in the final stages of a star's collapse, the curvature of space-time becomes so large that classical general relativity theory no longer holds and quantum-gravity effects should take over. Indeed, physicists expect that quantum gravity would modify Einstein's theory near the singularity so that it is not formed at all.

The classical relativity theory is neglecting the energy of the space curvature itself, so such result can be interpreted by the Heim's/Yilmaz's theory as well. I suppose, both the QM approach, both the GR approach are mutually interchangeable here, so such results cannot serve as the final confirmation of some particular theory, unfortunately.

jal

3rd February 2006 - 04:51 PM

I is obvious that the believers of "structured spacetime" will have an up hill battle to try to say," It's my particle my theory". "There's my proof!!"

Every other influential group are all ready and lined up. They have the majority of the voter already convinced.

It does not mean that the theories makers should stop and die. After all LQG is the underdog and considered to be a dark horse by some.

Jal
don't forget what I said,
Do you want to be a "math. kid?"
Read the following pages up above

Zephir

3rd February 2006 - 05:23 PM

QUOTE (jal+Feb 3 2006, 07:51 PM)

I is obvious that the believers of "structured space-time" will have an up hill battle to try to say," It's my particle my theory". "There's my proof!!"

Yes, you're totally right. But all the current theories are just approximative, the LQG theory isn't exception. I recommend to consider the vacuum as the dense, but highly elastic (i.e. compressible) environment, all the other properties, approximations and the internal structures of it should be just the result of such introducing concept.

The main problem of both the LQG and M-theory arises from the assumption of some internal vacuum structures (i.e. particles, quantum loops, branes, twistors, whatever..), which are supposed ad-hoc for simplifying of such model. As the result, such theories will become over-parametrized necessarily, loosing its predictability. I believe, the vacuum behaves just like stupid vibrating massive elastic continuum formed just by inhomogeneities of it itself - not less, no more. The rest should be computed from ab-inicio, i.e. without any further consideration(s).

I admit, it can be a quite difficult for somebody to accept such approach, if he believes - even propagates - the naive idea, such massive environment doesn't exist, because it was refuted by the Michelson-Morley experiment more than one hundred years before, etc....

But it's not my problem of course, as such experiments - together with the light speed invariance postulate - are just a confirmation of Aether concept, instead.

jal

3rd February 2006 - 05:56 PM

Who has the right structure?.... secondary....
The number one problem is to demonstrate that the data collected supports a "structured spacetime".

jal

Zephir

3rd February 2006 - 06:29 PM

QUOTE (jal+Feb 3 2006, 08:56 PM)

The number one problem is to demonstrate that the data collected supports a "structured spacetime".

Nope, it can be very simple. For example, the Heim's theory has some structure concept and is able to predict the mass/charge of some simpler particles to the 6 valid figures.

Such agreement can be considered to be a good demonstration of such concept validity.

amrit

3rd February 2006 - 07:53 PM

jal: we could do something to try to detect the structured spacetime?

Amrit: space-time has a body of a man and tail of a fish
it calls physicist continuously to bring them on the wrong path

the right direction is : TIME IS MOTION,

space time we will never be detect, because it does not exist in the universe
it is math model only

jal

12th March 2006 - 11:06 PM

Hi!
It is time to bring these 3 threads together with matter/particles.
HOW GRAVITY AFFECTS THE SHAPE OF SPACETIME/SPOT

What would be the shape of spacetime in gravity? We have been told that spacetime is bent by gravity. We have been told that photons are red shifted by gravity. We have been told that lenght increases as you get closer to a black hole. Therefore, what would be the shape of spacetime that would cause these observations? (THE QUESTION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED.)

See the shape of spacetime in progressively increasing gravity. (space, earth, sun, big sun, and black hole. Or, if you like, no particle to progressing to more particles.) Therefore, there should be some observations in quantum physics.

It becomes obvious that there should be red shift perpendicular to the horizon and that there should be blue shift horizontal to the horizon. The blue shift cannot be detected. However, the bending is detected.

There should be variations in the experimental observations of the Inverse Square Law. The RADIUS IS DIFFERENT (X,Y,Z), THE SURFACES AREA IS DIFFERENT (X,Y,Z). SPACE IS NOT A SPHERE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF GRAVITY. Therefore, space MUST have an internal structure. THE EVENT HORIZON OF A BLACK HOLE IS 2 DIMENSIONAL.
The reason that we do not detect a difference when measuring forces that depend on the Inverse Square Law, is because of the internal structure of the packed "spots". In 3d there are still 12 "kissing numbers".

However, when space is close to the event horizon of a black hole the 3d dimension is squashed and the event horizon is 2 dimensional and the kissing numbers are reduced to 6.
User posted image

The bending of light by a gravitational body was predicted by Einstein (1912) a few years before the publication of General Relativity in 1916. For a point mass the defection can be calculated and is one of the classical tests of general relativity.
See
Deflecting of light by a gravitational field
Here is how the packing of spots would look like in gravity.
user posted image

Comments on these presentations are appreciated.
Is GR and SR being violated or being explained?

jal

Montec

13th March 2006 - 12:49 AM

Hi jal

Interesting idea. How does one go about deforming the spots, say back to spheres while in a gravity field? If you are right then the shape of the spot governs physical quantities. Is the deformation the result of gravity leading to time dilation or visa versa? Is there a cause and effect that can be established? What intrinsic part of a spot allows it to affect or be affected by gravity and/or time?

These are questions that will need to be answered to flesh out your theory. If these questions can be answered then I for see some exciting times ahead.

TheProdigy

13th March 2006 - 03:20 AM

Yin Yang, It's Too Mystical, of course it represents balance but The Universe Is More Systematic and can have an absolute probability under the right calculated circumstances.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOB: 3/31/92

amrit

13th March 2006 - 12:45 PM

light bend because space is round.
space is round because of the change of density D
density D is a physical property that mahes space round
and speed of motion depends on density D
more dense space less speed of motion

and time here is only a model to discribe motion

Zephir

13th March 2006 - 02:08 PM

QUOTE (amrit+Mar 13 2006, 03:45 PM)

and time here is only a model to discribe motion

The time is the physical quality to describe the change. The motion is just a very special case of change, ie. the gradual redistribution of the Aether density in space.
The Aether is much more general term than space, as the Aether contains more the one space at the same moment.

Guest_guest

13th March 2006 - 03:44 PM

The metron? -----> = spot..??

MMC

13th March 2006 - 03:55 PM

QUOTE

The metron? -----> = spot..??

Technically, its conceptual...its a method of representing the situation.

Zephir

13th March 2006 - 04:12 PM

QUOTE (Guest_guest+Mar 13 2006, 06:44 PM)

The metron? -----> = spot..

By the Aether Wave Theory (AWT) the metron can have the physical meaning. As you probably know already, the AWT explains the Aether as the recursive wave equation solution. The gravitons are created as the fluctuations of nearly homogeneous environment, formed by the gravitational collapse of previous generation of Universe and denoted by the deep blue color on the animation bellow:

user posted image

The metrons should be a waves of such environment, they're corresponding to super-gravitons in quantum field theory.

jal

14th March 2006 - 01:50 AM

Montec...
Your answers are in my threads... due to a conspiracy to bury and to prevent my message from going out... you would have see your answers.

jal

gadfly

8th May 2006 - 10:44 PM

Hi jal:

RE: your original Post Jan 24 2006, 09:04 PM for this topic, figure with
Space v Time and Spot 1-2-3-4

Consider imagining this 3D variant of your 2D diagram:

A 1-2-3-4 helicoid arising from the screen toward the viewer.

Similarly, construct helicoids for each loop from
image of Loop Quantum Gravity Carlo Rovelli
http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/%7Erovelli/loop...tum_gravity.jpg

Similarly, construct helicoids for each planetary orbit from
the Solar system.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/...solarsystem.GIF

- SPECULATION -
By constructing 3D helicoids from 2D loops, perhaps one has added a dimension of mechanics to a still picture or snapshot.

This may be equivalent to changing from a time dependent to a time independent Schroedinger equation.
[in 1. Solution of Schrodinger's Equation; NOTE applet is 2D NOT 3D]
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/palmer/tdse.h...FTOKEN=93304793

jal

8th May 2006 - 10:58 PM

Hi gadfly!

I will look at what you are saying.... I had previously brought out the similarity with Carlo Rovelli in my Inverse Square Law thread.
At the moment my head is spinning from trying to understand The Metron Model by K. Hasselmann.
I could end up changing my mind about a lot of stuff.

So far, I've been able to determine that his approach is that the structure of space is responsible for what we perceive and measure. (You better be good at math to understand what he is saying. It's looks like the math that I was saying must be out there.)
I think that if he had used the packing approach his presentation would be a lot easier. (There are 12 d but we only see 3d)

jal

gadfly

9th May 2006 - 12:08 AM

Hi jal:

K Hasselmann may be correct about The Metron Model’ [MM]. I speculate that perhaps MM, if valid, likely will unify with LQG and some type of string theory, if both of these are valid, just as matrix mechanics is dual to wave mechanics [although NOT yet demonstrated in the Monstrous Moonshine Lie superalgebra].

David Hestenes [physics emeritus, ASU] has a great website for Geometric Algebras.
http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/
He is specifically lucid in ‘Universal Geometric Calculus’ dealing with Lie, Grassmann and Clifford Algebras and many other important topics in QM that may relate to GR.
http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/html/UGC.html

Nick

9th May 2006 - 12:45 AM

Somebody named Clifford something said that matter is the structure of space in the 1880's.

jal

15th August 2006 - 11:35 PM

Hi C2 and everyone!

It seems that I’m posting bigger and bigger posts every time that I want to pass on some information.
I hope that you can all help me with the following approach.
The big challenge, which is being undertaken by many on this forum, is to make “A DYNAMIC WORKING MODEL OF SPACETIME.”

My approach is to use a minimum size of a spacetime unit which I called a SPOT.
(see my presentation.)
By using a CUBIC PACKING AND a HEX PACKING of these SPOTS, in 3d, I end up with spheres which have a double hexagram void in the middle. This results in having 12 paths for information to flow from point A to point B.

Since we cannot detect spacetime then a presumption would be that the spots are arranged in a neutral configuration FOR DETERMINING A SYMMETRICALLY STRUCTURED SPACETIME.
How could the spots be arranged?
A balanced arrangement would work.
user posted image

Here is a line of investigation that looks interesting.
MAGIC SQUARES, MAGIC HEX., MAGIC CUBES FOR DETERMINING A SYMMETRICALLY STRUCTURED SPACETIME.

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/mathcon.html
The Zen of Magics Squares, Circles, and Stars by Cliff Pickover

p. 1… S = N(N^2+1)/2 which gives the sum for each of the rows and columns for a magic square. (5 must be in the center for a 3 X 3 square)
p. 97 .... S = ½(N^4+N) which gives the sum for each row, columns and diagonal for a magic cube. ( 14 must be in the center for a 3 X 3 X 3 cube and S = 42.) There are 4 such cubes, not counting reflection and rotations.
There is no perfect cube of order 2, 3 or 4. The definition has been relaxed so that semi perfect magic cubes can be created for all orders higher than 2. These cubes have only row, columns and 4 space diagonals that are magic.

However, there are millions of perfect order-8 magic cubes and for powers of 8.
Doesn’t this make you realize that packing is important in understanding the universe?
The Heims people should investigate the relationship between the 8 dimensions used by Heim and the perfect order-8 magic cube. This could be more than coincidence. { S = ½(N^4+N) }.
They have already found the GOLDEN RATIO.

QUOTE

(TRoc @ Jul 28 2006, 02:15 PM)
I checked into the author of the file, it is from Olaf.
" Geometrische Konstanten xi geometrische Konstante (VI) 1.61803399E+00 "

From the Excel file " Heim Massenformel 0.52b ", under the Konstante tab. (2006)
Hi Troc,
I should have recalled - it looked familiar - it's just the golden ratio:
(sqrt(5) + 1 ) / 2 = 1.618033989

http://www.drking.plus.com/hexagons/magic/hexagram.html
Magic Hexagrams
The task is to arrange the numbers 1 to 12 in the triangles, so that each row (horizontal and diagonal) adds up to the same (magic) constant.
The following two solutions are unique (excluding reflections and rotations):-
user posted image

They are complementary - i.e. swap 1 & 12, 2 & 11, 3 & 10, 4 & 9, 5 & 8, and 6 & 7 in either hexagram to get the other.
The magic constants (the sum of each of the 6 possible rows) are 33 and 32 respectively.
Could the cubic and the hex. configurations of the spots be represented by these two arrangements and thereby make a neutral configuration of spacetime?
Here are more approaches which might be correlated with the wave function of particles.

http://www.drking.plus.com/hexagons/magic/star.html
Magic Stars of David
There are 80 unique magic stars, excluding reflections and rotations. These can be arranged as a basic set of 20, where each one of these 20 can be transformed into 3 further stars eg by swapping the cells with the same colour here (eg swap the 2 red cells, the 2 yellow cells, etc):
user posted image

This transformation can be repeated on the other 2 axes at 120 degrees to the one shown, giving us a total set of 4 stars.
You can easily see why this works: the top row of coloured cells all end up swapped with the bottom row, so both these rows are still magic; each diagonal row only experiences a change of position of the same cells - eg the 2 red cells still stay on the same row - and thus stay magic.
Here is a text file with all 80 magic stars
User posted image

From Harry Langman, Ph.D., Play Mathematics, Hafner Publishing Co. 1962.
http://www.geocities.com/~harveyh/unusustr.htm

This star contains the consecutive numbers 1 to 12 arranged so that all six small triangles sum to 17. The complement of this star (each number subtracted from 13) has each triangle summing to 22.
There are two other such arrangements, with the triangles summing to 18 and 19.
Each of these has a complement, summing respectively, to 21 and 20.
Note that the star (17), as a whole, is not magic but that (26) is magic.
Would we need a Five-in-One star to represent how a spot creates a particle?
This pattern was constructed by a Mr. Morton about 1915. It appears as fig. 678 on page 348 of W. S. Andrews, Magic Squares and Cubes, Dover Publ. 1960
User posted image

The innermost star (heavy red) is an upside-down Pattern 7A, and uses the consecutive numbers from 1 to 14 so is a pure magic star. It is an equivalent to basic solution number 71.
The blue star (S = 120) also has 4 numbers per line. It is also an upside down Pattern 7A.
The Violet star (S = 144) has 6 numbers per line and is an upside down pattern 7B.
The light red star (S = 340) has 10 numbers per line and is also a pattern 7B.
The Green outside star (S = 520) also has 10 numbers per line and is a pattern 7A.
The author used the numbers from 1 to 101 for this construction. Six of these numbers were not used and three of them were used twice.
WOULD THE MAGIC BOX/CUBE/HEX BE A VALID APPROACH TO FINDING HOW A SYMMETRICALLY STRUCTURED SPACETIME IS PUT TOGETHER?
DUE TO IT'S SYMMETRY, WE CANNOT DETECT IT.
JAL
PS
To get an idea of how old this kind of thinking is look at The Mysteries of Vedic Mathematics:Sacred Geometry Squares and the Golden Mean
(Don’t let the “claims and trappings” hide the underlying knowledge.)

jal

16th August 2006 - 04:57 AM

LATE EDIT:

Correction for saying "perfect order-8 magic cube" for Heim.

QUOTE

Posted: Jun 29 2006, 10:17 PM
Heim just went 4^3 = 64 combinations.
He then said that 28 always remained empty which meant that only 36 combinations would produce an input to the complex wave. Further more, he said that there was an additional 12 inputs that were vanishing.
This remainder, 24, is the same as my combinations without considering time as another possible rotation.
Therefore, I conclude that Heim could have started his approach the same way that I did. He probably did not use degeneracy.
This would indicate to me that a rotation in the time plane is not needed. It could also mean that Heim was trying to conceal how he did derive the mass of the particles.
http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/summary/summary.htm

I should have said a semi perfect (order-4) magic cube?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I should have said a semi perfect (order-4) magic cube?
The definition has been relaxed so that semi perfect magic cubes can be created for all orders higher than 2. These cubes have only row, columns and 4 space diagonals that are magic.

It could also mean that Heim was trying to conceal the fact that he use the magic cube as a template to derive the mass of the particles.

Jal

jal

17th August 2006 - 11:54 PM

Hi!
For those who are not familiar with "magic Square"
read http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MagicSquare.html

QUOTE

Kraitchik (1942) gives general techniques of constructing even and odd squares of order . For odd, a very straightforward technique known as the Siamese method can be used, as illustrated above (Kraitchik 1942, pp. 148-149). It begins by placing a 1 in any location (in the center square of the top row in the above example), then incrementally placing subsequent numbers in the square one unit above and to the right. The counting is wrapped around, so that falling off the top returns on the bottom and falling off the right returns on the left. When a square is encountered that is already filled, the next number is instead placed below the previous one and the method continues as before. The method, also called de la Loubere's method, is purported to have been first reported in the West when de la Loubere returned to France after serving as ambassador to Siam.

jal

fivedoughnut

18th August 2006 - 05:02 AM

Jal,

Just an abstract thought

.....could magic squares etc be subsets of a magic circle...i.e, multiverse?

disiree yvonne

1st September 2006 - 10:37 PM

[B][I][FONT=Courier][SIZE=14][COLOR=red]What we can do is try to create and hypothiesis frist and go through the steps and prcess to figure it out

Nick

1st September 2006 - 11:37 PM

Do you think it is possible that time could transform into space and space into time?

I started asking this question after being exposed to the book: The Twin Dimensions: inventing time and space.

Zephir

2nd September 2006 - 08:02 AM

QUOTE (Nick+Sep 2 2006, 02:37 AM)

it is possible that time could transform into space and space into time

It's obvious, the time and space are in mutual duality by the same way, like the potential & kinetic energy or the electromagnetic and electrostatic field. By relativity theory, the mutual transforms of space into time is reciprocal, so that the space-time curvature remains constant. The AWT explains the transform of space into time by common phase transform mechanism of dense Aether matter.

amrit

2nd September 2006 - 08:56 AM

By relativity theory, the mutual transforms of space into time is reciprocal, so that the space-time curvature remains constant

zephir i never heared that space can transform into time
please can you support that idea with some formulas

Zephir

2nd September 2006 - 09:16 AM

QUOTE (amrit+Sep 2 2006, 11:56 AM)

zephir i never heard that space can transform into time, please can you support that idea with some formulas

By relativity (and Maxwell's aether theory of light, too) the light speed is invariant by its very nature.
So if you increase the space, you should increase the time too, so that the the light speed remains constant.

amrit

2nd September 2006 - 04:27 PM

zephir you are a "hocus pochus" thinker sometime

So if you increase the space, you should increase the time too, so that the the light speed remains constant.

what an idea here above
zephir meditate over...................
i have no comments
i can not have comments on such a crep
HOW YOU WİLL İNCREASE SPACE !!!!!!!!!!!?????????

Zephir

2nd September 2006 - 04:59 PM

QUOTE (amrit+Sep 2 2006, 07:27 PM)

i can not have comments on such a crep HOW YOU WİLL İNCREASE SPACE !!!!!!!!!!!?????????

A quite easily- it's a pretty cheap trick, in fact ..

By AWT the space is formed by membranes of Aether foam. You can increase the space by increasing of density of foam. How exactly? By introducing of energy.

Such energy makes the membranes vibrate at the "higher pitch", so they will contract itself, thus forming a smaller bubbles. As the result, the new bubbles will be formed and the space becomes "larger". After all, by the very same way "expands" our Universe, like dense star, collapsing by its own gravity

amrit

3rd September 2006 - 06:15 AM

zephir we can talk only about change of "curvature-density" of space that depends on amount of matter into given volume of space

YOU CAN NOT İNCREASE SPACE OK!?

Zephir

3rd September 2006 - 10:07 AM

QUOTE (amrit+Sep 3 2006, 09:15 AM)

zephir we can talk only about change of "curvature-density" of space that depends on amount of matter into given volume of space

Please consider, at the case you're formed by inertial standing waves of such matter, the amount of matter would be exactly the thing, which you're calling the "expansion of the space".

This is a whole trick of AWT, after all. The energy cannot spread "through space", but just only along density gradients inside matter. If you remove such gradients, you'll destroy the space at the same time.

amrit

3rd September 2006 - 05:53 PM

zephir space is eternal (as energy) , it can not be created or destroyed
it changes its density only

Zephir

3rd September 2006 - 05:58 PM

QUOTE (amrit+Sep 3 2006, 08:53 PM)

zephir space is eternal (as energy) , it can not be created or destroyed, it changes its density only

Why do you think so? If the space can change its density, such density can be diminished to zero. After all, the Aether Wave theory (AWT) proposes the simple gravitational pressure mechanism, by which the spatial density can be destroyed to zero. Such mechanism is quite comon in the nature for energy waves.

Please consider, the space is just a abstract geometrical concept of space-time metric composed from different number of spatial dimensions - it cannot have density or temperature or something as an attribute, face it.

If you want to talk about "space with density", you should use a different denomination, instead..

amrit

4th September 2006 - 08:49 AM

Why do you think so? If the space can change its density, such density can be diminished to zero.

no zephir, also in intergalactic area space has some density
also in an absolute vacuum there is some density D of space
space is energy

Zephir

4th September 2006 - 09:17 AM

QUOTE (amrit+Sep 4 2006, 11:49 AM)

no zephir, also in intergalactic area space has some density also in an absolute vacuum there is some density D of space
space is energy

You forget the space inside of black hole, Amrit..

By AWT the space is formed just by density gradients of Aether. These gradients will be destroyed inside of black hole by chaotic fluctuations due the immense pressure. No gradients, no density, no space at all...

You can imagine the particles inside black hole as a cluster of tightly adjacent mercury droplets like raspberry. The space is formed by the foamy boundaries between droplet. But if these droplets will condense by pressure, the rest is nearly non conductive for energy waves. By such way the space will be destroyed together with phase boundaries between droplets.

user posted image

Such situation is quite common in physic for mechanical waves, in fact. A most of material is losing its elasticity under pressure, changing itself into nonelastic fluid. Thixotropic polymers and bismuth alloys are the most apparent examples. But the supercummulative explosives are working on the same principle: the electrons in the target materials are pressed by such way, the symmetry of mutual interactions is destroyed. As the result, the matter will behave as amorphous chaotic fluid with low viscosity and no elasticity. This is why, the tiny metalic core of such explosives accelerated to supersonic speed can pass through a thick layer of armour with no problem.

By such way, the physic of black hole core doesn't differs so much from normal elastic matter behavior.

amrit

4th September 2006 - 09:49 AM

By such way, the physic of black hole core doesn't differs so much from normal elastic matter behavior.

no zephir it is another story black hole
inside of the black hole space is very dense
so dense that all subatomic particles are transformrd back into QS of space
in black hole matter transformc back into space ("ether" if you prefer so)

Zephir

4th September 2006 - 10:12 AM

QUOTE (amrit+Sep 4 2006, 12:49 PM)

inside of the black hole space is very dense, so dense that all subatomic particles are transformed back into QS of space

I don't know about "QS" and your theoretical support of such concept, but in fact it can be conceptually very similar model to that of mine, Amrit...

Try to explain me, why "all subatomic particles should be transformed back into QS of space" and we'll see, wheres the exact difference.

amrit

4th September 2006 - 01:40 PM

because space is so dense that electrons can not "move" around the nucleus
gravity prevail all other forces
no material structure is possible
so all fall apart into "bacic" elements that are QS

jal

4th September 2006 - 02:30 PM

You are both doing a excelent job of ruining/destroying a good thread.
Go and read how the universe is made.

jal

amrit

4th September 2006 - 02:52 PM

jal tell us
we are ready to here your ideas
just do not criticize
do not be a grand papa
we do not need that

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.