A Theory of Everything: Elementary particles are stabilized distortions (knots) in/of discrete space-time
jrad...@gmail.com
I'd like to get some feed back from people who are physicists ...
A Theory of Everything: Elementary particles are stabilized distortions
(knots) in/of discrete space-time
First consider space-time as a discrete (quantized) grid of points in
some number of dimensions. Of course this grid does not exist in
space-time, but is some kind of mathematical construct. Particles are
stabilized distortions in this grid. A simple example might be
interchanging two points in this grid. Interchanging these points
requires some energy, but, once accomplished, the distortion is
relatively stable and stores the energy required for its creation. If
we completely destroy the particle (stabilized distortion/knot) by
replacing these two points in the grid to their original positions, all
of this energy is released. In a more complicated particle, points of
space-time are interchanged in a more complicated manner. These can be
partially "untied", resulting in one or more independent, yet different
from the original, stable distortions plus some energy. These
distortions might be thought of as knots tied in the multiple
dimensions of the discrete space-time grid. These knots travel in
space-time just as a knot in a string can travel down the string while
retaining its essential nature, they may even move through each other.
Matter and anti-matter are knots tied in exactly opposite ways such
that, when they are brought together, they untie each other.
These knots cause tension and distort the surrounding space-time grid.
The gross distortion is gravity and, in order to relieve tension in the
space-time grid, the knots behave as if they are attracted to each
other. Nearer the knots, the distortions are particular to the manner
in which they have been tied. Two knots, depending on the nature of the
distortion they cause and the manner in which these distortions
interact, may repel or attract each other.
Photons are not stabilized distortions, but distortions traveling
through the discrete space-time grid; waves in/of space-time. As
photons are distortions, they share some of the characteristics of
particles. As waves in/of space-time, they exhibit wave
characteristics.
Jason Addison
Henning Makholm
> Disclaimer: IANAP, but I've had these ideas for a while, and I thought
> I'd like to get some feed back from people who are physicists ...
Several people in this group will call you a crank and fling insults
at you. Based on your disclaimer I will assume that you are not one,
but you may be perilously close to _becoming_ a crank. (This will
happen if you insist that your theory is valuable instead of trying to
understand why people say it isn't).
> A Theory of Everything: Elementary particles are stabilized distortions
> (knots) in/of discrete space-time
This may or may not be true in some appropriate metaphysical sense,
but it is a long way off from being a physical theory. This may
surprise you, because your explanation does look somewhat like the
kind of stories you can read in many books that attempt to explain
physics to laymen, even books written by real, repected, clever,
physicists such as Hawking. But what these books contain is not the
theories, but abridged poetic descriptions of a few main properties of
the theory. They resemble the actual theory in the same sense that an
artist's watercolor impression of a city seen from a nearby hill
resemble a detailed survey showing all the houses, all the property
lines, and all the buried cables under the streets, rigidly to scale.
So what you're doing is to show us a pretty watercolor showing an
magined city. It looks like a cool place to go on a vacation, but we
cannot really see whether it would ever work in practice. Are there
enough food shops to feed all of the population? Are all houses
connetected to a water mains? Are there enough pumping stations to get
sewage out of that low-lying neighborhood? Is the street network even
connected? We can't tell, and it will be a stupendous work for you to
spell it out in enough detail - work which it will take you years and
years to learn to do yourself, and which it's unlikely that you will
be able to persuade anybody else to do, because your postcard picture
is not _all_ that more excting than what one could get a random art
student to doodle out if one needed to.
Leaving the analogy aside (it breaks down when most imagined holiday
resorts can be made real given enough capital, whereas the vast
majority of theory doodles will never work, no matter how much time
and effort you throw at them. Perhaps I should have talked about
science-fiction cover artwork instead):
The real test of a theory is whether it leads to actual, testable
predictions about how experiments should come out - not just
qualitative statements such as "a patteren of dark and light bands on
the screen", but qantitative ones such as "here is how you can
calculate the widths of the bands from things you already know,
*before* doing the experiments". This means that there needs to
be exact formulas, and precise description of how those formulas can
be used to arrive at testable predictions - in sufficient details that
others can check the calculations and ascertain that they indeed do
follow from your original model without any extra hidden assumptions.
Once you have reached that stage, the test for being accepted as a
*good* theory is that it correctly predicts all of the known
experiments that it would apply to (which is non-negotiable; if it
doesn't it is dead), *and* that it is _better_ than other known
theories, either by working for experiments where they don't, or by
being clearly and significantly more elegant when all the
mathematical fleshing-out is counted.
What you have here is extremely far from yielding testable
predictions, so it is not a theory. And because you don't seem to have
a good idea what whould be needed to flesh it out enough to make
predictions from it, it is not even a serious beginning of a theory.
Sorry for crushing your dream.
--
Henning Makholm "I ... I have to return some videos."
Edward Green
[snip sketch]
Hi Jason:
(1) I have had almost exactly the same idea.
(2) Henning Makholm very accurately describes the situation.
However, I would part with Makholm's gratuitous twisting of the knife:
> What you have here is extremely far from yielding testable
> predictions, so it is not a theory. And because you don't seem to have
> a good idea what whould be needed to flesh it out enough to make
> predictions from it, it is not even a serious beginning of a theory.
He would have done much better if he stopped before these remarks.
There are all manner of defective personalities represented here:
Makholm's is the educated essentially sane individual who apparently
visits here chiefly to prove to himself what a clever fellow he is --
hence his long sketch describing the fact that your sketch is in fact a
sketch.
> Sorry for crushing your dream.
No, you're not. You're adding hypocrisy to your debit sheet.
Henning Makholm
> However, I would part with Makholm's gratuitous twisting of the knife:
>> What you have here is extremely far from yielding testable
>> predictions, so it is not a theory. And because you don't seem to have
>> a good idea what whould be needed to flesh it out enough to make
>> predictions from it, it is not even a serious beginning of a theory.
I have trouble grasping what you think is wrong with this paragraph.
The fact that the OP does not know which way to go from here is a
necessary part of the explanation *why* his sketch is not a theory.
I fairly certain that some good theories started as this kind of
musing by a good physicist: "Hm, I wonder whether it would pay of to
look at it in this intuitive way ...". And the thing that makes it
take off as a theory is that the physicist knows enough of how
theories work and the phenomenon he is seeking to explain to start
working out how that intuitive idea might lead to a predictive theory.
So it is not a non-starter merely because it is a sketch. It is only a
non-starter because it is a sketch that is not informed by knowledge
of how other attempts to make a theory have failed, i.e. what the
particular problems a theory domain needs to avoid are.
> Makholm's is the educated essentially sane individual who apparently
> visits here chiefly to prove to himself what a clever fellow he is
Your attempt to guess at my motivations fails rather completely.
>> Sorry for crushing your dream.
> No, you're not. You're adding hypocrisy to your debit sheet.
What hypocrisy?
--
Henning Makholm "The Board views the endemic use of PowerPoint
briefing slides instead of technical papers as an
illustration of the problematic methods of technical communicaion at NASA."
Edward Green
> Scripsit "Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com>
>
> > However, I would part with Makholm's gratuitous twisting of the knife:
>
> >> What you have here is extremely far from yielding testable
> >> predictions, so it is not a theory. And because you don't seem to have
> >> a good idea what whould be needed to flesh it out enough to make
> >> predictions from it, it is not even a serious beginning of a theory.
>
> I have trouble grasping what you think is wrong with this paragraph.
I expressed what I thought was wrong in the quoted sentence.
There is no doubt here of your understanding. What I don't see the
necessity for is desconstructing the question at such excruciating
length, giving a final twist of the knife by saying not only don't you
have anything, you don't even have the beginning of anything, and then
saying you're "sorry".