Spacetime and Gravitation Based on Logic, instead of Einstein Assumptions
qchi...@yahoo.com
www.PhysicsRenaissance.com
If the idea of unified field theory (UFT) is correct, then a definition
of Unified Spacetime Geometry (USG) should exist in which UFT can be
expressed in a simple and obvious way, like EM in terms of Lorentz
spacetime. If the USG happens to coincide with Lorentz spacetime,
it’s great, but there is no reason to assume this coincidence. As
already revealed by the standard model, Lorentz spacetime cannot
present these forces in a simple and obvious way (even though it is
verified to certain extent). Hence, it makes sense to look further for
the more suitable USG. In this respect, notice that there are three
assumptions in today’s spacetime geometry: 1. the assumption of
inertial frames in special relativity, 2. the assmption of consistent
proper time across a manifold in general relativity, and 3. the
assumption of the existence of plane angle scales without being defined
by any physics activity. This discussion deals with the first two
assumptions. Please refer to my website, www.physicsrenaissance.com,
for an investigation of the third assumption. Obviously, the purpose
is not to criticize or disprove Lorentz spacetime (or the general
relativity based on it) as they are already verified, but to uncover
the spacetime aspects beyond what is assumed. Because these
assumptions were set up with only electromagnetism in mind, exploring
beyond them may very well uncover geometric aspects appropriate to the
non-electromagnetic parts of unified field theory. It will be shown
that these assumptions actually act as a lock which closed the door to
a hidden dimension which could have been defined concretely (but is
instead substituted by these assumptions).
The Assumption of Inertial Frames in Special Relativity
Lorentz spacetime is defined for uniformly moving frames to measure
light at the same speed, regardless of the frame velocity. The problem
is that “uniformly moving” frames are pre-selected before Lorentz
spacetime scales are defined to justify its uniformity. Likewise,
light and faster-than-light (FTL) mono matter waves also cannot be
distinguished until Lorentz spacetime scales are defined. The remedy:
the strict spacetime definition without presumption would be based on
the principle that all light and FTL (according to Lorentz scales) mono
waves be measured at the same speed, and include both inertial and
non-inertial frames, with “uniformly” moving frames defined “as
being measured by the spacetime scales being defined”.
Elimination of the assumption: the generalized 4+1 spacteime
Not being pre-occupied with Lorentz spacetime (thus, no wave packets,
no earth, no stars, etc.), just imagine what would be the spacetime
definition which accommodates “all” mono matter waves most
elegantly. It is a 4+1 spacetime, as mono waves have but one more
degree of freedom, its speed. Adding one extra dimension to
accommodate this degree of freedom naturally levels all mono waves to
the same (light) speed. The 4+1 spacetime is the “inevitable”
conclusion of special relativity if the definition of Lorentz spacetime
is executed rigorously. The 4+1 spacetime is the most natural and
symmetric spacetime for both massive and massless particles as all of
their associated waves share the same massless wave equation in the 4+1
spacetime
[ ∂^2/(∂x0)^2 - ∂^2/(∂x1)^2 - ∂^2/(∂x2)^2 - ∂^2/(∂x3)^2
- ∂^2/(∂xm)^2 ] φ = 0 (1)
But when observed from the Lorentz subspace, the same waves appear as
[ ∂^2/(∂xL0)^2 - ∂^2/(∂xL1)^2 - ∂^2/(∂xL2)^2 -
∂^2/(∂xL3)^2 – m^2 ] φL = 0 (2)
where mass is gained automatically due to change of scales. (Subscript
L means under Lorentz measurements, while no subscript is for the 4+1
scales). Superscript m is for the extra dimension, xm. The
transformation between them, for “each” mono wave, is
dxL1 = dx1 (3a)
dxL2 = dx2 (3b)
dxL3 = dx3 (3c)
dxL0
= dx0 • [(p1)^2 + (p2)^2 + (p3)^2 ]^½ / [(p1)^2 + (p2)^2 + (p3)^2 +
m^2]^½
≤ dx0 (3d)
dxLm = 0 (3e)
Since Lorentz time scale is shorter than the 4+1 time scale, eq. (3.d),
it measures “the same” mono wave as FTL. Just like SR uniting the
absolute Newtonian time and space to form a 3+1 space-time continuum,
the 4+1 spacetime unites mass with Lorentz spacetime to form a 4+1
space-time-mass continuum, as demonstrated in eq. (1). Eq. (1) is also
more beautiful than (2) as xm is treated on the same footing as all
other dimensions. The 4+1 spacetime doesn’t contradict the verified
Lorentz spacetime, but only expands it. It makes no sense to rule out
the FTL mono waves at the beginning as they are “not” faster than
light in the more natural (inertial-frame-assumption-free) 4+1
spacetime. Instead, what should be removed is actually the assumption
of inertial frames. (Note: since in the real world we feel only one
time flow, the various Lorentz times for different waves are
synchronized and spatial dimensions are expanded.)
The philosophy behind
SR and GR have reached the deepest quest for the nature of mass. We
have to define inertial mass, gravitational mass and the equivalence
between them through the definition of space and time. Correct
understanding will only emerge with correct definition, which usually
is the one which renders physics in the simplest and most elegant form.
Before all these quantities are defined, we should just let physics
define them without imposing any assumptions. However, presuming
knowledge of uniform frame velocity, we inadvertently closed the door
of finding the real nature of mass (thus “forced” mass to be
“intrinsic”). Put differently, based on the energy-momentum-mass
relation of SR, (E)2 – (p1)2 - (p2)2 - (p3)2 - m2 = 0, space
(inverse of energy), time (inverse of momentum) and mass can be
defined. But there are 5, not 4, quantities to be defined. All the 5
should be defined simultaneously, none should take precedence over the
other. But Lorentz spacetime is defined prior to mass by
electromagnetism. Lorentz spacetime is defined based on a special case
(m=0) of equation (2), while the 4+1 spacetime is from the general
case, equation (1). Even though GR attempted to incorporate gravity
later, it is still based on Lorentz spacetime, and the real nature of
mass (i.e. nature of inertia and gravity) cannot be revealed. To have
mass involved in equal status, both light and FTL (massive) waves must
be used in its definition, as suggested by Lorentz and agreed by Weyl.
This leads unambiguously to the elegant 4+1 space-time-mass continuum,
which has built-in equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass (i.e.
the real essence of gravitation), and hence, if interpreted
appropriately, the simplest and most elegant gravitation theory should
come out of it.
Obviously, this is a profound change not easy to adjust over night.
Point is there are in fact assumptions in SR and GR (to be discussed
next) which can be removed and I didn’t impose anything of my own, I
just carried out Einstein’s teaching one more step and replaced
assumptions by logical definitions whenever possible. That is, if
special relativity were introduced after quantum mechanics and mono
matter waves could not be excluded, the same spacetime definition would
result in the 4+1 spacetime instead of 3+1 Lorentz spacetime. This is
the only logical conclusion which yields just perfect answer to quantum
gravity and unification with quantum mechanics as to be shown later.
4+1 universe and parity violation
This immediately leads to a 4+1 universe (like the spatial dimensions,
the extra dimension, xm, is also external) with the universe we see
being a curved 3+1 manifold, most likely the curved 3-surface of a
4-sphere, in the flat 4+1 spacetime. If this were true, the same
quasars (or whatever objects sitting at the other end of the spherical
universe) would likely be observed from both opposite directions in
each of the 3 dimensions of the universe (just like two persons
traveling from north pole in opposite directions at equal speeds will
eventually meet at south pole.) Actually, the numerous double quasars
may already serve as partial evidence, where the whole spherical
universe serves as the lens. The scarcity of galaxies immediately
before the quasar region might also reveal the fact that the 3-volume
near the quasar region is actually quite small, as conjectured by this
model. In addition, the extension of electromagnetism to the 4+1
spacetime naturally covers parity violation and weak interaction.
The Assumption Of Consistent Proper Time In General Relativity; Gravity
>From The 4+1 Spacetime And Unification With Quantum Mechanics
Curvature from stress-energy of uniform mass and uniform momentum
In defining spacetime scales over a curved manifold, general relativity
lets proper time act as the standard yardstick and assumes it be
consistent throughout the universe. The problem can be seen as
follows. Einstein equation is written as
G = 8πGT (4)
Consider the curvature generated by the stress-energy of a single type
of particles with uniform mass m and uniform momentum p (and E = (p2 +
m2 )½ ). As stress-energy tensor of such a curvature can be
decomposed as a product of two 3+1 vectors,
T(E,p^) = (E,p^)×(E,p^)/[V(E^2 – p^2 )½ ] (5)
Einstein curvature tensor can also be decomposed in the same way,
G(T,X^) = (T,X^)×(T,X^)/[V (T^2 – X^2 )^½ ] (6)
Hence Einstein equation can be written as
(T,X^)×(T,X^)/[V(T^2 – X^2 )^½ ]
= 8πG (E,p^)×8πG(E,p^)/[V 8πG (E^2 – p^2 )^½ ] (7)
Thus we obtain a 3+1 “vector” equation,
(T,X^) = 8πG (E,p^) (8)
There are complicated mathematics with some parameters to be set
between the metric gμν (distance and time units) and the vector
(T,X). It is reasonable to assume these parameters should be set to
make local time unit dξ0 and distance unit dξ be proportional to
nothing but T and X of the vector (T, X). Let’s call this the
“Assumption of Local Space and Time Units”. Let
dξ0 = kT (9a)
dξ^ = kX^ (9b)
Hence,
(dξ0 , dξ^ ) = (kT,kX^) = 8πkG (E,p^) (10)
On the other hand, this assumption, eq. (9), is also supported by
quantum mechanics. Consider these particles as waves of energy E and
momentum p, the natural space and time units should be related to
nothing but the wave length and frequency of the waves, as there exists
nothing else. This is a pre-requisite for unification of gravitation
with quantum mechanics. From (10), the local proper time unit can be
derived as
dτ = [(dξ0)^2 - |dξ|^2 ] ½ = k [T^2 – X^2 ]^½
= 8πkG [E^2 – p^2 ]^ ½ = 8πkG m (11)
which clearly depends on the mass behind local stress-energy. In other
words, Einstein equation itself dictates proper time variation
according to underlying masses (at least in this case). If a
neighboring curvature is generated by a uniform-mass-uniform-momentum
stress-energy of mass twice as big, then its proper time unit should
also be twice as big. Assuming the same proper time units would
inadvertently reduce all 4-vector and mass values by half for the
neighboring locality. Thus, Einstein equation as currently understood
is self-contradictory. This is why 4-vectors and masses cannot remain
constant after parallel transport. Even if the “Assumption of Local
Space and Time Units”, eq.(9), were wrong, it wouldn’t help; it
only hides the problem, as 4-vectors and masses still cannot remain
constant after parallel transport. The “Assumption of Local Space
and Time Units” only manifests the hidden problem. This also hints
at the cause of the dark matter and flat universe mysteries.
Adjustment
The correct parameterization would be obtained by admitting dependence
of local proper time on underlying masses and adjusting equation (7)
according to eq. (11),
[(T,X^)×(T,X^)/(dτ)^2 ]
/ [V(T^2 – X^2 )^½ /(dτ)]
=[8πG(E,p^)×8πG(E,p^)/(8πkGm)^2]
/[V8πG(E2–p^2)^½/(8πkGm)] (12)
No more mass and 4-vector distortion under parallel transport. Without
the adjustment, (7) is applicable only locally, which is the only
situation GR can be proved correct (as was done in the solar system).
For a swarm of particles, each term must be adjusted separately before
being summed up,
∫dX^ \sum T\ [(T,X^)×(T,X^)/(dτ)^2 ]
/[V(T^2 – X^2 )^½ /(dτ)]
=
∫dp^ \sum E\ [8πG(E,p^)×8πG(E,p^)
/(8πkGm)^2]/[V8πG(E^2–p^2)^½/(8πkGm)] (13)
Notice that the summation over mass is now shifted to that over energy.
Because mass is not an independent variable of Einstein tensor, thus
must be consistent, otherwise both energy, momentum and mass become
independent variables, which are more than actually exist. On the
other hand, Einstein equation without adjustments,
∫dX^ \sum dτ\ (T,X^)×(T,X^)/[V(T^2 – X^2 )^½ ]
= ∫dp^ \sum m\ 8πG(E,p^)×(E,p^)
/[V(E^2 – p^2 )^½ ] (14)
is a summation of oranges and apples, i.e. over terms of different
masses and space/time scales (i.e. proper times, dτ’s), which is a
real mess. One can see the problem in Einstein tensor as currently
understood is real serious, not only between localities, but also is a
mess within itself at one locality. Claiming Einstein tensor as
currently understood being non-linear and non-decomposable, or claiming
the “Assumption of Local Space and Time Units”, eq.(9), being wrong
cannot be an excuse and is irresponsible, as these claims are
independent of the mess in Einstein tensor and an arbitrary Einstein
tensor is still not based on a consistent proper time (or mass) no
matter what, and mass and 4-vectors still distorts after parallel
transport. They only hide the problem, which eventually shows up in
the persistent failure of quantum gravity, unfound graviton,
gravitational waves and dark matter, etc. It is highly doubtful that
gravity will be quantized under string theory, as the theory misses the
point. It is said Einstein equation is beautiful. But what good does
it do if mass and 4-vectors don’t even conserve after parallel
transport? Since Einstein equation has been verified in the solar
system, we may claim that the validity of Einstein equation is limited
to one locality for one single mass without summation.
Curvature vector equation
Even though the adjusted equation (13) solved the problem of scale
distortion, it still suffers from the problem of nonlinearity. Since
none of the experimental tests of general relativity verifies that
gravitation must be nonlinear and since the verification of GR in the
solar system is not super accurate (like QED), we are tempted to
cautiously introduce a fairly close linear equation which is valid for
non-local scales and with multiple mass summations but approaches
Einstein equation locally in the solar system. It is Einstein’s
highly intellectual insight to envision curvature in gravitation, but
at non-local scales it should probably be expressed in the language of
3+1 curvature embedded in a “flat” 4+1 spacetime, rather than in
terms of Riemann geometry. As mentioned earlier, the 4+1 spacetime has
built-in equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass, hence the
simplest and most elegant gravitation theory, the following is one of
the possible attempts based on the 4+1 spacetime. This linear theory
from the 4+1 spacetime should produce the same result in the solar
system, but produce a different and much better result at large scales,
like in galaxies and clusters of galaxies, thus solving the dark matter
and flat universe problems (in addition to quantum gravity and
unification with quantum mechanics). Instead of eq. (13), we adopt the
closest linear approach to it, i.e. its basic ingredient, the vector
equation
(T,X^) = 8πG (E,p^) (15)
Since inertia is manifested in each mono wave by the amount it’s
faster than light, gravity should also be manifested in each mono wave.
Parallel to the superpositioning concept of quantum mechanics, each
mono wave in the 4+1 theory also contributes its part to the spacetime
definition of the manifold. Thus, corresponding to a wave packet
Ψ = ∫dp^ \sum E\ f(E,p^) exp[-iπ(x0p0-x^∙p^)] (16)
there is the superpositioned “total curvature vector” (as opposed
to curvature tensor) related to the total energy-momentum
∫dX^ \sum T\ f(E,p^)[(T,X^)/(dτ)] / [V(T2 – X2 )½ /(dτ)]
= ∫dp^ \sum E\ 8πGf(E,p^)[(E,p^)/(8πkGm)]
/ [V8πG(E2–p2)½/(8πkGm)]
(17)
Notice that left and right sides have their proper time and mass
synchronized, i.e. summed up on consistent mass and proper time to
avoid summation over apples and oranges, with
dτ = 8πkG m (18)
This gives a genuine unification of gravitation with quantum mechanics.
The mathematics in this theory is extremely simple, but, like
electromagnetism, that is what the right theory for such a fundamental
force should be.
4+1 Quantum Gravity. Gravitational Waves And Gravitons
The most fundamental form of gravity, eq. (15), can be combined with
(18)
(T,X^,dτ/k) = 8πG (E,p^,m) (19)
One sees the proper time, dτ/k, in eqs. (18) and (19) are just the
component of the extra dimension xm, because
(∂ξ0)^2 - (∂ξ1)^2 - (∂ξ2)^2 - (∂ξ3)^2 - (∂ξm)^2 = 0
(20)
and
dτ ≡ [(dξ0)^2 - |dξ|^2 ] ^½ = (∂ξm) (21)
Thus, we have the most elegant vector equation of gravitation in the
4+1 spacetime,
(T,X^,dτ/k) = (T,X^,xm) = 8πG (E,p^,m) (22)
The linear equation (22) will generate gravitational waves in the 4+1
spacetime
Ψ = exp[-iπ(x0p0- x1p1- x2p2- x3p3- xmpm)] (23)
which are observed faster-than-light in the Lorentz spacetime as
ΨL
= exp[-iπ(xL0pL0 - xL1pL1 - xL2pL2 - xL3pL3 )]
= exp[-iπ(xL0pL0 - xL^∙pL^)] (24)
In other words, gravitational waves are but the FTL mono matter waves
being denied all the time, and gravitons are just all elementary
particles formed from the mono waves, which are always observed but
never recognized as gravitons. It is conjectured that cosmic rays
could just be gravitons emitted as gravitation radiations by
astronomical bodies.
Dark Matter and Flat Universe
Unlike in Einstein theory where only local Lorentz scales is available
for measurement, the 4+1 theory uses one consistent 4+1 scales
throughout the universe. Assuming a spherical 3-d universe, a locally
FTL mono wave far away will be measured “even faster” when
translated to the “universal” 4+1 scales which has its xm
perpendicular to the Lorentz spacetime on earth. This is simply
because the far-away Lorentz spacetime is not parallel to the Lorentz
spacetime on earth, thus will augment mass, and naturally cause the
missing mass problem. In other words, Einstein theory has never had
one consistent spacetime scale and has never realized the fact that
distant masses are actually larger than it appears under the one
consistent scale on earth. Or, a star of 1 solar mass according to its
local Lorentz spacetime near the edge of a galaxy may be considered 3
or 4 solar masses by the one consistent 4+1 scales at the center of the
galaxy, thus causing the dark matter problem. Similarly for the
mystery of flat universe.
Comparison with Einstein Gravitation
While Einstein tensor suffers from shrinkage/expansion from location to
location and summation of apples and oranges, it is valid within a
limited locality and without mass summations. Thus, even though eq.
(17) is a curvature vector equation, the local Einstein tensor in this
special situation can be calculated and related to the stress-energy
tensor,
∫dX^\sum T\ f(E,p^) (T,X^)×(T,X^) /V(T2 – X^2 )½
= ∫dp^ \sum E\ f(E,p^) 8πG(E,p^)×8πG(E,p^)/V8πG(E2–p^2)½
(25)
In general, the same equation would not hold after a spatial rotation
and hence eq. (25) must be given up. But for a spherically symmetric
situation, such as for the experiments performed in the solar system,
the equation holds after the summation.
With the function f(E,p), equation (25) can be made arbitrarily close
to the Einstein equation verified in the solar system. In other words,
the experiments which verify Einstein equation positively can be
interpreted just as verifications for the curvature vector equation
(17). Thus, it may be said that: 1. the curvature vector equation
reduces to the Einstein equation in the special spherical case of one
single locality without mass summation, and 2. the assumption of
consistent proper time in general relativity is acting as a lock which
closed the door to the discovery of the universal curvature vector
gravitation (17).
Discussion
Assumptions in spacetime definitions sometimes act as a lock which
closed the door to a new dimension which could have been defined
concretely by an interaction but is instead substituted by that
assumption. Investigation of these assumptions will reveal the hidden
geometry and re-establish the interaction in terms of the newly
revealed geometry in an obvious and elegant way. Actually, the very
assumption of inertial frames deprived us of our ability to quantify
how far a non-inertial frame is from an inertial frame and how far the
non-inertial frames are from each other. Reinstatement of a proper
definition of (the “distance” between) inertial frames according to
the gravitating mass is actually the establishment of a more logical
gravitation theory.
Question: Is there someone who is in the capacity of organizing a
project to verify that same quasars observed in opposite directions in
all 3 dimensions, which will prove immediately that our universe is 4+1
dimensional.
Mysteries in particles cannot be solved by the 4+1 spacetime alone. It
also requires the concept of solid angle rotation discussed in my
website www.physicsrenaissance.com
qchiang
xx...@bellsouth.net
xxein: 3+1is just fine. All that is needed is to identify why things
move (including the 3+1).
> Mysteries in particles cannot be solved by the 4+1 spacetime alone. It
> also requires the concept of solid angle rotation discussed in my
> website www.physicsrenaissance.com
Energy released from a non-perfect point (say a black hole or a big
bang) cannot diffuse without entanglement (chaos). But it does follow
physical laws. We wish to know what they are.
Until someone demonstrates that how the entanglement exists/ensues and
is sustained (presumedly by this very same energy), we will not know
gravity. But we do know that energy density (heat/collision/friction?)
does make the micro and the macro anistropic to each other. Add to
that, the very basic idea of adiabacity (local triggers) that define
states of energy and matter against themselves and each other and you
will find that our inept considerations of any known laws of physics is
only macrosanct.
Does this mean that we will never "know" the laws of this universe or
beyond? Yes! But, still, we don't know what road to follow either.
We get our jollies by comparing ideologies instead of being bold enough
to break away and create new philosophy oriented to the universe
instead of our subjective self-view.
These are but simple words and yet we cannot break away from the
subjective ideology we have ordained for ourselves. It seems as though
that if we can't trace it to ourselves, it cannot exist. Oh my, how
the universe forgets to appease our meagre thoughts! Why doesn't it
obey us?
Would the universe act the same if it had to obey a mortal's theory?
Where is the 'authority' to decree? Even if all the tried and accepted
theories gave only their most positively proven aspects, this universe
would probably disolve in a femto-second. You know I am right.
All we can do is study to find the correct road that this universe
follows. I doubt that we have the resources to follow it 10% of the
WAY. Such is our life as we don't know it.
OK. We settle with 5% of anything subjectively oriented that is
domesticated to us and call it a physic. That is on the extreme
macro-side of all events that occur. If measured in layers of
complexity (those beyond our current scope or comprehension), our
wildest imagination is certainly less than 10% of the scope of the
micro-events that make things work in a continuous universe (and we
don't even know if THIS universe is of completely sole existense).
We WILL create this universe in our own image just as we create gods.
All is subjectivity with a limp salute to a subjectively chosen
objectivity. Einstein succombed, also. Lorentz didn't think that far
ahead (gravity).
How far would you like me to go with this? There is no end, why should
there have been a beginning?
Bill Hobba
<qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157040903.2...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> In this respect, notice that there are three assumptions in today's
> spacetime geometry:
> 1. the assumption of inertial frames in special relativity,
Yep it is really a big assumption having not a shred of any evidence that
frames that are isotopic and homogeneous in space and homogeneous in time
should exist - at least conceptually.
> 2. the assmption of consistent proper time across a manifold in general
> relativity,
So looking at the time on your wristwatch is not invariant? It basically
means regardless of coordinate system what you observe for a clock at rest
wrt to you is always the same. It is so obvious that to doubt really would
indicate severe problems in thinking.
Rest of rubbish/misconceptions snipped.
Bill
FrediFizzx
news:NfNJg.21165$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Sheesh Bill, I think you might be a bit quick on the trigger here. You
didn't even read far enough to understand what he is talking about. An
extension to GR; not a replacement. IMHO, Super-GR is needed.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Sue...
xx...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> xxein: 3+1is just fine. All that is needed is to identify why things
> move (including the 3+1).
Things (inertial masses) move because they are getting closer
to objects pulling them forward while getting farther from objects
pulling them backward.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
They don't accelerate in this process (as a falling meteor) because
in a homogenous universe the motion increases the population
of retarding objects behind them while decreasing the population
of attractive objects before them.
That sounds a little like:
'fish can coast in water because their behind is getting
squeezed harder than their head.'
Maybe that is not too far off the mark considering the shape
of a fish. :o)
Sue...
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0107015
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
>
>
qchi...@yahoo.com
My answer to XXEI...Bellsouth:
Xxein...@Bellsouth and Bill Hobba,
Yes, there are a lot of things we don't know and probably will never
know. But, what I'm trying to point out here is that, for answering
the unified field theory, we haven't yet exhausted all the basic
spacetime geometrical aspect which are (relatively) easily reachable.
Let me expound it more to make this concept more comprehensible. We
all know the Lorentz spacetime is 3+1 dimensional. But is it just 3
spatial dimensions and one time dimension. No, because there is also
the rotation group SO(3,1). So, the Poincare group contains linear
displacement and rotation groups. But, is that all to the Lorentz
spacetime? No, where are the solid angle (3-d) rotation, and even
higher dimensional rotations? Obviously, Poincare group is not
complete yet. As pointed out in my 2nd article in my website, weak
interaction is believed to be caused by solid angle rotation. We
cannot formulate weak interaction simply and obviously without solid
angle rotation, just as we cannot formulate EM simply and obviously
without recognizing plane angle rotation. But instead of exhausting
all these possibilities, we went too far beyond, such as the strings,
etc.
Investigation of the assumptions is a way to explore the hidden aspects
of spactime. I would say my purpose is to uncover what is hidden
behind the assumptions, rather than criticizing or disproving the
assumptions.
Let's start from the 3+1 Lorentz spacetime continuum. If now we
assume time is absolute, we get just one slice of the Newtonian space
and time. It is a separate 3-d space (plus a separate absolute
time). Investigation of the assumption (of absolute time) is not
necessarily disproving Newtonian space and time. On the contrary, the
investigation leads us to try a non-absolute time and let time vary
with space according to certain physics activity (e.g. EM). As a
result, the new time dimension (as a continuum with the space) is
uncovered. That's why I say an assumption sometimes acts as a lock
for a door to a new dimension or aspect of spacetime geometry.
Now, as I showed in my post the most natural and symmetric spacetime
should be 4+1 dimensional. The assumption of inertial frames
effectively fixes us at one 3+1 slice of the 4+1 spacetime continuum.
Investigation of the assumption will unlock the lock for the door to
the xm dimension.
The same is true to the assumption of consistent proper time in GR. If
measured by the universal consistent 4+1 spacetime scales, locally
Lorentz light waves could be much faster than light. Assumption of
only light speed for light waves restricts the (GR) theory applicable
only to local region, such as in the solar system, which is exactly the
only place GR has been verified.
Whether the xm dimension or solid angle rotation, they all come out of
logical deductions without subjective opinion. They are much less an
invention than the strings.
As to the black hole, in the 4+1 spacetime universe and all particles
(e.g. protons, neutrons, etc.) are believed to be 4 (spatial)
dimensional. A black hole is probably equivalent to a particle.
As to the philosophical aspects of physics, I think at such a
fundamental level, they cannot be separated. Spacetime geometry and
physics come hand in hand. Geometry is defined by physics activities
and physics activities occur because geometry offers that freedom for
physics to perform. It's hard to ask whether physics comes before
geometry or geometry comes before physics. And geometry sometimes
represents human's subjective view point. But that is true only when
we have found the simplest geometry to represent physics.
Qchiang
qchi...@yahoo.com
Please see my reply to xxein...@Bellsouth.
As pointed out there, investigation of assumptions in spacetime
definitions is not for the purpose to criticize or disprove the
assumption or definition, but to explore beyond what has been assumed,
which might be appropriate for non-electromagnetic part6s of the
unified field theory.
I selectively mentioned these 3 assumptions only because I saw
dimension or geometric aspect hidden behind these assumptions. Of
course, there are other assumptions.
Obviously, Einstein also observed the assumption of inertial frame
being too restrictive, hence developed GR. But I don't think he did
it in the most elegant way. As elaborated in my post, the most elegant
result will only come out by invoking inertial mass and gravitational
mass at each mono matter wave level (which results the 4+1 spacetime).
Qchiang
xx...@bellsouth.net
qchi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> xx...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > qchi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > For more background and related topics, please refer to my website:
> > > www.PhysicsRenaissance.com
> fundamental level, they cannot be separated. Spacetime geometry and
> physics come hand in hand. Geometry is defined by physics activities
> and physics activities occur because geometry offers that freedom for
> physics to perform. It's hard to ask whether physics comes before
> geometry or geometry comes before physics. And geometry sometimes
> represents human's subjective view point. But that is true only when
> we have found the simplest geometry to represent physics.
>
> Qchiang
xxein: But, as you say, "And geometry sometimes represents human's
subjective view point.". But you also say "But that is true only when
we have found the simplest geometry to represent physics.".
The simplest form is to accept that there is a god and trust in that
god, but we don't want to go that route, do we (I certainly don't)?
No, we dither on with other beliefs that are never ending.
Spacetime geometry and physics don't come hand in hand unless we
believe that particular rendition. There are many other renditions
that do not violate a physic, but only violate a popular physical
belief. "human's subjective viewpoint".
I would suggest that you should investigate ALL the philosophies of
physics and not just chosen ones.
I'll end with this thought. A philosophy can tell you to turn left,
right, up, or down from wherever you are in thought. The universe
doesn't give a wit. It has its own laws.
It is not as simple as 2+3=5. The universe may operate as 12-7=5. We
have no way, yet, of knowing how its intrinsic units operate. We only
speculate.
Denis.S...@gmail.com
actual physics ... my mistake :) Intelligent mathematical reasoning is
such a rare sight on the web ... I'd forgotten what it looks like!
- *grin*
Ken S. Tucker
FrediFizzx wrote:
> "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
> > > 2. the assmption of consistent proper time across a manifold in
> general
> > > relativity,
> > So looking at the time on your wristwatch is not invariant?
That is such a stupid question it's annoying,
Hobba has NO clue of what "invariant" means.
Hobba shits in his outhouse, then claims it's
invariant because it stopped wriggling, duh.
Rest of Hobba's rubbish/misconceptions snipped.
> Sheesh Bill, I think you might be a bit quick on the trigger here. You
> didn't even read far enough to understand what he is talking about. An
> extension to GR; not a replacement. IMHO, Super-GR is needed.
> FrediFizzx
Fred, I'm seeing a lot of parallel's between Chiang's
and Yablon's thinking where 5D is concerned, could
be a classic case of parallel genius like Leibnitz and
Newton where calculus was concerned.
I'm sure you recall from electronics we use "phasor"
diagrams to analyse impedance, specifically an axis
labelled sqrt(-1) and it works excellently, although it's
described as an *imaginary* axis. I base my thinking
of the 5th dimension on that, but instead of getting
energy stored in a capacitor or inductor, we get an
energy stored in a material particle.
The big pay-off will be some way of predicting the
particle spectrum, that is what I keep looking for too.
> Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
> or postscript
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
> http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Best Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Bill Hobba
<qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157159306.0...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
And I simply mentioned what lies behind two of those so called assumptions.
That you would doubt them is as silly as thinking the earth is flat.
Bill
qchi...@yahoo.com
Don't get me wrong. Investigation of the assumptions doesn't mean
I doubt it. It only means, " what would come out if I don't make
this assumption?" or " what would come out if I substitute this
assumption by something else, e.g. a logical definition".
I'll repeat below the section I replied to xxein yesterday:
qchiang
xx...@bellsouth.net
xxein: I think it would more closely resemble 3+1+1 or 3+1+f(g).
I do not say this lightly.
FrediFizzx
news:1157316470....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
You left off the hidden sector. It would be 3+1+1+3. Two partially
intersecting 3-branes with the "hidden gravity" 3-brane densely
populated with fermionic pairs. ;-)
FrediFizzx
Bill Hobba
<qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157254989.4...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Just like investigation of the assumption the earth may be flat leads to the
inevitable conclusion those that think it is are loonies.
> .or " what would come out if I substitute this
> assumption by something else, e.g. a logical definition".
>
> I'll repeat below the section I replied to xxein yesterday:
>
> Investigation of the assumptions is a way to explore the hidden aspects
> of spactime. I would say my purpose is to uncover what is hidden
> behind the assumptions, rather than criticizing or disproving the
> assumptions.
>
> Let's start from the 3+1 Lorentz spacetime continuum. If now we
> assume time is absolute, we get just one slice of the Newtonian space
> and time.
Since the 3+1 Lorentz space-time continuum is based the exact opposite
assumption you contradicted yourself from the start. Care too rephrase it
in terms of a theory that has absolute time like LET?
> It is a separate 3-d space (plus a separate absolute
> time). Investigation of the assumption (of absolute time) is not
> necessarily disproving Newtonian space and time.
You need to think a bit clearer - since Newtonian physics is based on
absolute time then verifying that assumption can not disprove Newtonian
physics.
Bill
FrediFizzx
Bill, you are a real "piece of work". ;-) Read the next two paragraphs
and stop jumping to false conclusions about what he is saying.
> > On the contrary, the
> > investigation leads us to try a non-absolute time and let time vary
> > with space according to certain physics activity (e.g. EM). As a
> > result, the new time dimension (as a continuum with the space) is
> > uncovered. That's why I say an assumption sometimes acts as a lock
> > for a door to a new dimension or aspect of spacetime geometry.
> >
> > Now, as I showed in my post the most natural and symmetric spacetime
> > should be 4+1 dimensional. The assumption of inertial frames
> > effectively fixes us at one 3+1 slice of the 4+1 spacetime
continuum.
> > Investigation of the assumption will unlock the lock for the door to
> > the xm dimension.
> >
> > The same is true to the assumption of consistent proper time in GR.
If
> > measured by the universal consistent 4+1 spacetime scales, locally
> > Lorentz light waves could be much faster than light. Assumption of
> > only light speed for light waves restricts the (GR) theory
applicable
> > only to local region, such as in the solar system, which is exactly
the
> > only place GR has been verified.
FrediFizzx
qchi...@yahoo.com
I'm not sure about your symbols. The symbol I
used, 4+1 spacetime, means an external spacetime (no internal
space) with 4 spatial dimensions, in which xm is just like any other
spatial dimensions, which can be rotated into and out of the other 3
spatial dimensions.
Qchiang
qchi...@yahoo.com
My point is that they are both right, depending on the scope. If your
scope is just a city, earth being flat is just fine. If your scope is
expanded to a continent, then the round earth is unavoidable. I really
didn't think those believing a flat earth are wrong. I just suggest
that to investigate whether this assumption is "always" right, i.e.
at city scale and at continent or larger scales. Eventually, we may
find a new spacetime concept. If you believe it is "always" right,
you will never find anything new. This is all I try to convey.
Yes, I really doubt if Lorentz sapcetime is good for grand scale
gravitation. I do think investigating the inertial frame and expanding
it to gravitation and galaxy scales will reveal new geometrical
aspects, as did General relativity (but I think its applicability is
still limited to within the solar system). Actually, in my view the
4+1 spacetime should have been revealed when quantum mechanical mono
waves were discovered, because 4+1 spacetime is the most elegant and
symmetrical to accommodate all mono and EM waves. Unexpectedly,
special relativity excluded the mono waves.
Mono waves (and hence the 4+1 spacetime) are the more fundamental part
of matter than packet waves. How can one hope to find the real Nature
by ignoring the more fundamental part of it? Since packet waves are
superpositional composite of mono waves, physical theories based on
packet waves and the 3+1 Lorentz spacetime (e.g. the standard model or
General Relativity) are like physics theories extracted from biological
observations, which can hardly be simple and obvious. It is believed
that only theories (whether it's particle physics or gravitation)
based on mono waves and the 4+1 spacetime can touch the real
fundamental essence of nature and hence able to reveal it in a simple
and obvious way.
I would expect people find by themselves that Lorentz spacetime (and
General relativity) are not suitable for massive particles and at large
astronomical scales. Unexpectedly, most people are insisting on it
even after near century failures, e.g. quantum gravity, unfound
graviton and gravitational waves, dark matter, flat universe, etc. At
least, it should be reasonable by now to try a little bit of the 4+1
spacetime, e.g. see if the same quasars can be found in opposite
directions in the universe.
If they want they can invent distance shrinkage/expansion, etc. to
insist a flat earth. In my view, today's physics is more like those
who insist a flat earth.
>You need to think a bit clearer - since Newtonian physics is >based on
>absolute time then verifying that assumption can not disprove >Newtonian
>physics.
Yes,
I do mean applying assumption of absolute time to Newtonian mechanics and beyond (e.g. EM).
qchiang
Ken S. Tucker
qchi...@yahoo.com wrote:
...
> If they want they can invent distance shrinkage/expansion, etc. to
> insist a flat earth. In my view, today's physics is more like those
> who insist a flat earth.
> qchiang
Kwan, I think you're uncharacteristically prejudiced here.
Near $billions is being spent testing GR via LIGO and GP-b.
What you need to do is take the theories you've developed
and output some quantitive or at least a clear qualitive way
to "weak force", "strong" or even the reason why EM exists,
perhaps an insight into what is an electron?
I've studied your theories, (for me it's hard work-work), looking
for some means to relate them to reality. Even AE's GR would
have been ignored if he predicted what Newton did, but instead
he (and colleagues) poured over astro data and eventually made
testable predictions and new explanations of known observations,
in a succinct consistent manner, that was practically common
sense. Here I'm thinking the orbital changes, gravitational red-shift,
Shapiro effect and the deflection of light which are rather simple.
More advance General Theory predicts LIGO, and GP-b results,
the results of those are pending.
qchi...@yahoo.com
Ken:
Thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Admittedly, I may be some what prejudiced. My prejudice may be
originated from the elegance of the symmetries between all inertial and
non-inertial frames and between massive and massless particles in the
4+1 spacetime. The aesthetic nature of the 4+1 spacetime for
gravitation and massive particles is just like Lorentz spacetime for
EM.
Certainly, more experimental verifications are necessary. An immediate
qualitative prediction would be same quasars observed from opposite
directions in the universe. It may require certain funding to perform
just this. A great deal more may be necessary for others.
I plan to post a message in the near future to discuss the other
spacetime assumption, which is related to the missing parts of Poincare
group and may be related to weak and strong forces.
Kwan