Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

My Own Interpretation Of The Extended Sakharov Gravitational Corrections


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3429 posts

Posted 10 February 2020 - 10:52 AM

(A) Interpretation of the Extended Sakharov Correction and Spin Configuration Space

L =... + mc² ∮ dk/k ⋅ R² λⁿ = ... + mc² ∮ d(log k) ⋅ n(n - 1) ⋅ λ^(n - 2) + C

The equation, after considerable evaluation, tells me that the propagators are almost completely describable by the wave encoded in the structure of spacetime itself with a given energy but the correct version requires relativity with a twist (B ). This is not generally a new conclusion, it was known even to the greatest of scientists that lived that everything will reduce to geometry in one way or another giving rise to tantalising thought experiments leading to geometry-related particle structures known as Geons; as it was known early on that P^-4 propagators where completely describable by their geometric structures. The reinterpretation of the correction factor written in terms of the conclusions from direct application of the calculus tells us that the wave itself is finite, it cannot extrapolate beyond its own confinement, however it is not so black and white, for if it did, it becomes a real particle, no longer what we associate with quantum fluctuations in the ground state. This is where a loop integral may take place, a wave confined in a four dimensional manifold will return back to the vacuum, in which we take this as the fluctuation meeting its own antiparticle respectively (2). This is how matter came into existence (1), for it is only curvature that Sakharov showed that the ground state itself gives rise to the possibilities for these "so called" virtual particles, to become real and observable with proper instruments. Of course the virtual particle is not virtual at all in any literal sense and is a misunderstanding when scientists have tried to make it so. These particles are very much real but we tend to think of observables in terms of the Hermitian matrices... Funnily, it was shown very early on by scientists such as Julian Barbour that Hermitian matrices are not always required to explain real dynamic effects on the quantum scales, but these ideas where rejected very early on by peers set in their minds of how physics has to be interpreted even though the math appeared to present otherwise, so he was somewhat forced to drop it... But history stains us with truths that we cannot ignore. In my own understanding, it seems to me that off-shell particles do not obey the Hermitian matrices but that does not mean generally that they are not observable. With the right apparatus, we do observe such systems, just that Hermitian mechanics can only apply to classical or semi classical domains which means also we have restricted interpretations of certain physics into boxes in which it cannot be reasonably explained but can be equally refuted.

(1) - As has been well known to physicists beyond their times, even Doctor Wolf knew that a "real particle" was actually just long lived virtual particle (Parallel Universes 1985). In this sense, a long lived virtual particle is one that is capable of escaping a confinement becoming a real particle. This brings into question an age old question as to why we can never detect a lone quark because they may be considered virtual in this sense. If the quark was separated from its bound partner, they remain entangled but always act as one system, regardless of whether one has escaped a gravitational field and another being confined by it, but we would observe either one in a semi classical domain. Black holes act as semi classical objects giving rise to the same ideas presented by Hawking in which a virtual particle escapes the field while another falls into it. Which is really virtual (¿) , the notion of virtuality seems to be a relative thing and depends on more aspects of a wider interpretation that may require a severe conclusion that we need to rethink about the terminologies we use within science, as we concluded before as it has led to quite a few scientists literally believing that ground state fluctuations do not even exist. This is such a wrong conclusion that it is almost worrying that physicists can be heavily blatent in their own interpretations. The scientist has to be open to most interpretations even if that makes their previous conclusions wrong, especially when the experiments contradict a dogmatic belief system.

(2) - However, photons are their own antiparticles so perhaps even certain particles simply decay because they have no equal analogue. But one thing is for sure, you cannot create one photon or any radiation, without a reflection of the system (such as we cannot create an electron and positron from a single photon alone) - a symmetry exists here. To call a particle its own antiparticle may be just an over-simplification of what we know about the nature of the universe.

Space is contracted and sometimes even length is added, these are all related to the Ricci flow of elasticity of space and time in which to make something expand or contract requires equally an energy associated to the absorption or emission of wave energy, just as in a universe where a rotation may have existed in primordial times, requires that it takes energy from the bulk system, or even equally, a universe that continues to expand or even accelerate will eventually lead itself to a ground state of radiation in the future horizon. We cannot do away with time in this manner as I once believed, it seems that we must accept to make sense of this dimension also as an observable in order to understand how a fourth dimension gives rise to observable curvature for without a fourth dimension, we would have no reasonable aspects to accept that curvature should exist at all... But it does. Curvature is manifestly an observable by matter responding to the medium and here we find the crux of the time problem. Of course it is no easy matter to settle, physicists like Barbour have contributed massively to our own misunderstandings of time. Sometimes we can even over-simplify the physics, but I understand why we do such things. To make progress in science, we do not start at the top and work our way down (ie. String theory) but instead we should always work from the simplest of models and as Einstein eloquently put, it "should be no more simpler" . Moreover,  a universe that has to expand for an infinite amount of time for it to be truly flat, but since the ground state fluctuations will always persist no matter how large it becomes, it seems that curvature or the lack thereof, is largely an illusion on the scales we can even observe: To add to this, infinity does not even exist in observable mechanics, a system is always finite no matter how much time you give it. A good analogy that has been known in literature concerning the illusion of a flatness, is how we can stand on the surface of a planet and be unaware without science, that is it actually curved in a global sense. As far as I know, Dr Garret and Susskind appear to be on the same page concerning the flatness issue. But it was in fact Arun and Sivaram who gave the first concrete mathematical limits for this, known as the extended equivalence principle.

(B ) the nature of relativity and quantum fluctuations

Virtual particles have been long known not to follow the exact principles extended for the classical (observable) physics. A virtual particle in other words does not always generally follow Einsteins correction formula ie.

E² = m²(c²)² + p²c²

Or  we can also interpret the square root which may hold answers to the differences between real and the misnomer of virtual particles

E = √m²(c²)² + p²c²

The square root is where the virtual particle should operate accordingly if at all, all we need to see this is, as a reductionism of a list of viewpoints in how we understand why certain energy rules is obtained by the single virtual fluctuation. A good example, is that a rest electron and rest positron obey the simple formula under annihilation as

E(+) + E(-) →0

Does not exactly equal zero, because the even they will decay into photons, just as we can take two photons and create matter from it (1). So even the zero energy principle cannot be obeyed in any classical meaning where one can deduct the absolute meaning of the limit it is just an oversimplified assumption of the mathematics. There is no limit when coming to the creation of matter, it persists and will always persist, just in different forms as we understand it from the first principles of thermodynamics.

It is only when the quantity is squared can we expect the virtual particles to obey the classical domain. This is why I now suspect that the squared quantity is in fact those particles which obey inertial mass while the square root must indicate what the mass is made of. This is quite a black and white picture but I expect it to be only a little bit more complicated. For instance, you cannot just simplify tlEinsteins correction factor in the modified Sakharov gravitational correction foolishly,

L =... + (mc² + pc) ∮ dk/k ⋅ R² λⁿ = ... + (mc² + pc) ∮ d(log k) ⋅ n(n - 1) ⋅ λ^(n - 2) + C

.... At least not without careful consideration, simply because virtual particles do not strictly obey the relativistic formula. Sometimes, for instance, the virtual particle will prefer to behave like a mass term and sometimes prefer the pure radiation term, and sometimes they may embrace both terms as a composite system, just has been eloquently shown in the past, the bound system of a photon following a curved trajectory can and does explain the observable structure of the rest electron. Then, even if the particle becomes real, when it obeys the exact Einstein correction we need to take then into account Diracs own correction which is known in mathematics as the spin operators following Clifford algebras. So things are not too clear.... The rest energy and the radiation energy appear like complimentary observables but may be again, just a deeper lack of our understanding of a more deterministic case underlying the deeper meaning behind what we think we know and what we believe we know.

If my assumptions are correct, the virtual particle or even the photon will obey the square root of the equation

E = √m²(c²)² + p²c²

So long as the photon has an extremely small mass, as deBroglie had suspected due the coherence of his own formulae. Its just that the mass is so small the √m²(c⋅c)² appears almost negligible however, a full blown photon appears to justify p²c² because it appears the dominant case. When two photons come together to make two particles of mass we can then argue for the squared case of the formula

E² = m²(c²)² + p²c²

In which it holds very well for our understanding of the creation of a rest system - except no particle is at rest, the  p²c² is just extremely small, depending on how "it moves according to relativistic speeds." it seems to me in this sense, knowledge of the first part m²(c²)² will always depend on a complimentary existence with p²c², but the the square root of the formula is quite unique when we consider how to interpret the physics and must be done carefully to make sense of these conclusions.

Moreover, it was in the invention of the Dirac equation that these complimentary values where hinting at the existence of entanglement, it seems that if matter was made from an internal structure of radiation spinning in opposite directions could easily play the role of the hidden variables I have spoken about there is no such thing as spooky action, no more have we understood the meaning of non locality. As Dr. Bell even admitted the loophole of super determinism. This as he admitted cannot be justifiably thrown in the proverbial bin. But then, he also knew localism and determinism did not indicate that things happen spookily as he was willing to accept that a pilot wave nonlocal model could not be absolutely ruled out either. Maybe somewhere in the middle, we may start seeing the bigger picture instead of being ruled by the so-called "mainstream," for even this has been taken to mean it is the most correct model when really, it is just a census. But like all proud individuals, even a scientist can become biased in their own work, especially if it means they are wrong, so even a census of ideologies can lead even the most intelligent down selfish paths.

With all that said, the following needs to be done, the modified Sakharov equation will require the spin matrices as would be expected from Diracs equation, then we need to look at the square and square root and amplify the statements made by the considerations of the mass energy law as explained in this article. I suspect so where down the line it will just boil down to wave mechanics, but this will not answer the wave particle duality, only I suspect it has something to with the energy associated to the particles but only respective to the geometry of metric as Wheeler strongly believed, and as others have. As he once said, it not that a relativistic particle gets heavier because of some internal structure, but is in fact determined by the geometry around it. Though the geometry around the relativistic particle I add, is also a by-product of something happening inside the system. The response of mass telling space how to move, where matter tells it how to bend, are all inter-related. In a subtle way, if the electron is a bound photon, then the deceleration radiation is a response of something inside of it and how it moves through space relatively-speaking of course. Perhaps the photon is subjected to dilation effects inside of the electron when at relativistic speeds, for a bound photon moving faster will experience a length contraction in the direction it is being dragged in, as much as the photon determines the structure of the electron at rest energies.

(1) - the model I speak of can be found in the following paper, they have since rewrote the theory in terms of general relativity but the simple model is always the most important because the results as simple as the model was, fits all observational data. The basic idea was always there, even Dr. Wolf had noticed this, all matter came from light, which is interesting philosophically-speaking since the oldest teachings of the Word said, "in the beginning there was darkness, and out of it came light" . This is why a pre big bang model can even be made sense from the laws of thermodynamics, it just means the pre big bang state was an all-matter condensed liquid form, from which an instability related to the annihilation of matter and antimatter occurred into a pure radiation vapor. Since then, matter appears to be condensing once again, as the universe cooled down. It must have been during the radiation phase the so-called "excess matter" (thought by many to be simply a leftover of the annihilation) in the observable universe had occurred, not immediately, but over a certain period of time. The leftover idea doesn't make much sense because there is way too much ordinary matter and we cannot seem to detect the other leftover antimatter, indicating to me at least, that there was no left-overs.

As I stated previously, "this is quite a black and white picture but I expect it to be only a little bit more complicated. For instance, you cannot just simplify the equation into Einsteins correction factor in the modified Sakharov gravitational correction foolishly,

L =... + (mc² + pc) ∮ dk/k ⋅ R² λⁿ = ... + (mc² + pc) ∮ d(log k) ⋅ n(n - 1) ⋅ λ^(n - 2) + C

.... At least not without careful consideration, simply because virtual particles do not strictly obey the relativistic formula. Sometimes, for instance, the virtual particle will prefer to behave like a mass term and sometimes prefer the pure radiation term, and sometimes they may embrace both terms as a composite system, just has been eloquently shown in the past, the bound system of a photon following a curved trajectory can and does explain a structure of the rest electron."

This means at times, the virtual particle may behave slightly more like a massless particle but when in reality the mass term can still exist but Einsteins formula requires the "super-small mass correction"

E = ε + pc

If the virtual particle tends to gain more rest mass than momentum, then the radiation term must become finitely small for a rest energy...

E = mc² + ε

However because of the Lorentz rotations for relativistic moving particles, the small terms are the ones that contribute to the energy of the system, by becoming larger with velocity at least, under this theory. Even in light of this different interpretation, we would still need to throw in there the spin coefficients to satisfy the Dirac equation under the Clifford algebra, rooted from a pure wedding of quantum and relativistic physics - don't be afraid if you don't understand what has been said, because even I am struggling to explain what I mean properly. But the underlying issue is if any of these speculations are correct, it means deBroglies coherence theory indicating the photon has a very small mass, would have to be taken seriously to accept this rough draft. And if the speed of light has shown to vary depending on how it twists in space, then Einstein was right about his general theory stating that the photon was indeed spatially variable, but as I have said, if this is true, it also has to be subject to small temporal variations as well or the notion of spacetime as a single entity cannot be justified. Though by no means, am I hinting that it is, quite the opposite. The notion of space and time being a single entity is uniquely mathematically-fashionable to understand geometry because without the fourth dimension, we would not be able to observe its effects in the form of curvature. The existence of these small mass corrections also means by coherence that the photon must have a very small charge, as I have argued, the neutrino cannot be unique in the sense it has a small mass and no charge, only that its gravitational charge (which is very small) must be roughly proportional to an equally small charge in its own frame (this means we would have to abandon the idea that the photon does not have a frame of reference as well) . The gravitational charge formula by Weinberg can account for a range of masses on the heirarchy model, so there is good reason to think the gravitational charge has something to do with unifying physics as cosmologist Lloyd Motz had suspected many years ago, except he took the values too seriously positing that a type of Planck particle existed in nature that he dubbed the Uniton. There really is no evidence that such Planck systems or micro black holes exist today... And even if they did, they could not be stable because I showed from my own work that the notion of a perfect refrigerator should not even exist in nature.

The torsion is the gravimagnetic field definition through units

iσ ⋅ (Γ_μv x E) = - ∂_μv B/∂t

∇_μv · E = ∂_μv ⋅ E - (∂_μv B/∂t)

γ_0 R_μv = − (∂_μ·∂_v + Γ_μ·Γ_v)γ_0 − 2 (∂_μ × Γ_v)^k γ_k

We define

∂_μv B/∂t = ∂Ω_μv/∂t

∇_μv E = ∂_μv ⋅ E - (∂_μv B/∂t)  = ∂_μv ⋅ E - (∂_μv Ω/∂t)

Since the magnetic force can unify under a weak limit, we can interpret above as the equation demonstrating the role as the gravimagnetic field defined under the geometric algebra formalism. We can define the gravielectromagnetism formalism in two equations establishing the gravelectric and torsion (gravimagnetic field) ;

∇_μv E = ∂_μv ⋅ E + (∂_μv B/∂t)^k γ_kγ_0
= ∂_μv ⋅ E + iσ ⋅ (Γ_μv x E)^k γ_k γ_0
= ∂_μv ⋅ E + (∂Ω_μv/∂t)^k a_k

R_μv = [∇_μ,∇_v] = (∂^k_μv γ_kγ_1γ_2γ_3 + iσ ⋅ Γ^k_μv γ_k γ_o)^2

In which I concentrated on the solution for the connection as;

∇ = - ∂^k γ_k + σ ⋅ Γ^k γ_k γ^5

We square;

∇_μv E = ∂_μv ⋅ E γ_1γ_2γ_3 + (∂_μv B/∂t)^k γ_kγ_0

= ∂_μv ⋅ E γ_1γ_2γ_3 + iσ ⋅ (Γ_μv x E)^k γ_k γ_0

= ∂_μv ⋅  E γ_1γ_2γ_3 + (∂Ω_μv/∂t)^k a_k

∇_μv γ_0 E = (∂_μv ⋅ E γ_1γ_2γ_3 + (∂_μv B/∂t)^k γ_k γ_0) γ_0 (∂_μv ⋅ E γ_1γ_2γ_3 + (∂_μv B/∂t)^k γ_k γ_0)

= (∂_μ ⋅ E γ_1γ_2γ_3 + iσ ⋅ (Γ_μ x E)^k γ_k γ_0) γ_0 (∂_v ⋅ E γ_1γ_2γ_3 + iσ ⋅ (Γ_v x E)^k γ_k γ_0 )

Alternatively

∇_μv γ_0 E = (∂_μv ⋅ E ^k γ_k γ_0) - (∂_μv B/∂t)^k γ_k γ_1γ_2γ_3) γ_0 (∂_μv ⋅ E ^k γ_k γ_0 - (∂_μv B/∂t)^k γ_k γ_1γ_2γ_3)

= (∂_μ ⋅ E^k γ_k γ_0 + iσ ⋅ (Γ_μ x E)^k γ_kγ_1γ_2γ_3) γ_0 (∂_v ⋅ E^k γ_k γ_0 + (∂_μv B/∂t)^k γ_k γ_1γ_2γ_3)


Based on what I knew from here, I considered the following ~ starting with a curvature tensor

R_μv = [∇_μ,∇_v] = (∂^k_μv γ_kγ_1γ_2γ_3 + iσ ⋅ Γ^k_μv γ_k γ_o)^2

Using

(γ_1γ_2γ_3)^2 = - 1

Distributing (γ_1γ_2γ_3)

We get for one connection

∇ = ∂^k γ_k (γ_1γ_2γ_3)^2 + iσ ⋅ Γ^k γ_k γ_o γ_1γ_2γ_3

iγ_o γ_1γ_2γ_3 = γ^5

Which yields

∇ = - ∂^k γ_k + σ ⋅ Γ^k γ_k γ^5

The master equation for gravielectromagnetism is;

∇_μv γ_0 E = (∂_μv ⋅ E ^k γ_k γ_0) - (∂_μv B/∂t)^k γ_k γ_1γ_2γ_3) γ_0 (∂_μv ⋅ E^j γ_j γ_0 - (∂_μv B/∂t)^j γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3)

= (∂_μ ⋅ E^k γ_k γ_0 + iσ ⋅ (Γ_μ x E)^k γ_kγ_1γ_2γ_3) γ_0 (∂_v ⋅ E^j γ_j γ_0 + (∂_μv B/∂t)^j γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3)

∇_μv γ_0 E = (∂_μv ⋅ E ^k γ_k γ_0) - (∂_μv B/∂t)^k γ_k γ_1γ_2γ_3) γ_0 (∂_v ⋅ E^j γ_j γ_0 + (∂_μv B/∂t)^j γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3)

Or as a mixture

∇_μv γ_0 E = (∂_μ ⋅ E^k γ_k γ_0 + iσ ⋅ (Γ_μ x E)^k γ_kγ_1γ_2γ_3) γ_0 (∂_v ⋅ E^j γ_j γ_0 + (∂_μv B/∂t)^j γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3)

So let's calculate this.

= (∂_μ ⋅ E^k γ_k γ_0 γ_0 ∂_v ⋅ E^j γ_j γ_0.
+ ∂_μ ⋅ E^k γ_k γ_0γ_0 (∂_μv B/∂t)^j γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3
+  iσ ⋅ (Γ_μ x E)^k γ_k γ_1γ_2γ_3 γ_0 ∂_v ⋅ E^j γ_j γ_0
+ iσ ⋅ (Γ_μ x E)^k γ_k γ_1γ_2γ_3 γ_0 (∂_μv B/∂t)^j γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3)

Using the following;

γ_0 γ_0 = - 1

iγ_1γ_2γ_3γ_0 = γ_5

(γ_1γ_2γ_3)^2 = - 1

∇_μv γ_0 E = (∂_μ ⋅ E^k γ_k γ_0 + iσ ⋅ (Γ_μ x E)^k γ_kγ_1γ_2γ_3) γ_0 (∂_v ⋅ E^j γ_j γ_0 + (∂_μv B/∂t)^j γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3)

= (∂_μ ⋅ E^k γ_k ∂_v ⋅ E^j γ_j γ_0.
+ ∂_μ ⋅ E^k γ_k (∂_μv B/∂t)^j γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3
+  σ ⋅ (Γ_μ x E)^k γ_k γ_5 ∂_v ⋅ E^j γ_j γ_0
+ σ ⋅ (Γ_μ x E)^k γ_k γ_5 (∂_μv B/∂t)^j γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3)

Using further γ_j γ_0 = a_k we have a simplification

= (∂_μ ⋅ E^k γ_k ∂_v ⋅ E^j a_j
+ ∂_μ ⋅ E^k γ_k (∂_μv B/∂t)^j γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3
+  σ ⋅ (Γ_μ x E)^k γ_k γ_5 ∂_v ⋅ E^j a_j
+ σ ⋅ (Γ_μ x E)^k γ_k γ_5 (∂_μv B/∂t)^j γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3)

Of course, you can ask, what is so special about geometric algebra, yet it has demonstrated wonderful and even found marvelous discoveries in physics. But what compelled me was from the following. I decided to see whether these mathematical laws could be avoided and found that the Dirac equation also has to obey it for the following.

(iℏ ∂^k_μ γ_k γ_0 - eA^k_μ γ_kγ_1γ_2γ_3)ψ = γ_0 mc ψ

Square:

m^2c^2 = (iℏ ∂^k_μ γ_k γ_0 - eA^k_μ γ_kγ_1γ_2γ_3) ψ (iℏ ∂^j_μ γ_j γ_0 - eA^j_μ γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3) ψ

= i^2ℏ^2 ∂^k_μ γ_k γ_0 ∂^j_μ γ_j

iℏ (∂^k_μ γ_k γ_0 eA ^j_μ γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3 - eA^k_μ γ_kγ_1γ_2γ_3 ∂^j_μ γ_j γ_0)

+ eA^k_μ γ_kγ_1γ_2γ_3 eA^j_μ γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3

Using i^2 = - 1 using normal convention, with ~

γ_0 γ_0 = - 1

(γ_1γ_2γ_3)^2 = - 1

iγ_0 γ_1γ_2γ_3 = γ_5

=  ℏ^2 ∂^k_μ γ_k ∂^j_μ γ_j

- iℏ (∂^k_μ γ_k γ_0 eA ^j_μ γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3 - eA^k_μ γ_kγ_1γ_2γ_3 ∂^j_μ γ_j γ_0)

+ eA^k_μ γ_kγ_1γ_2γ_3 eA^j_μ γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3

Rewrite

- ℏ (∂^k_μ γ_k γ_5 eA ^j_μ γ_j  - eA^k_μ γ_k γ_5 ∂^j_μ γ_j)

Which includes γ_5 drawn from the fact we used iγ_0 γ_1γ_2γ_3 = γ_5.

m^2c^2/ℏ^2 =   ∂^k_μ γ_k ∂^j_μ γ_j

- i/ℏ (∂^k_μ γ_k γ_0 eA ^j_μ γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3 - eA^k_μ γ_kγ_1γ_2γ_3 ∂^j_μ γ_j γ_0)

+ 1/ℏ^2 (eA^k_μ γ_kγ_1γ_2γ_3 eA^j_μ γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3)

(i∂_μv−eA_μv/L)ψ = σ ⋅(mc/L)_μv ψ = (σ ⋅ ∂_μv) ψ

(i∂_μ−eAμ/L)(i∂_v−eA_v/S)ψ = (m^2c^2/L ⋅ S)_μv ψ = (σ ⋅ ∂_μ) (σ ⋅ ∂_v) ψ

By deduction the last term reveals the geometric algebra;

(σ ⋅ ∂_μ) (σ ⋅ ∂_v) = ∂_μ∂_v + iσ ⋅ (∂_μ x ∂_v)

And is a type of box operator, one being scalar and the other a vector. Hence why such algebra is called the bivector approach. Perhaps biscalar is a more appropriate in the long run since we take the spin vector as a dot product on the vector part?

So what's a the big deal about polarizability of space? It means it directly can answer why dark matter is in fact a drag effect from the gravitational supermassive black hole it harbours. Polarization of space I found out afterwards has been taken seriously in literature to explain dark matter effects.
While the photon is believed to be its own antiparticle, the rough idea is that antiparticles arise from a clockwise or anticlockwise rotational period inherent within the motion of the system. The belief structure for a very long time was and still to some today is that the electron was following zitter motion, consisting of a photon moving apparently below its own finite speed and yet, if an Electron is a bound photon, must be a bound photon with an opposite spin according to the positron.. Oh how quickly this would resolve a number of problems in physics over night. All particles would then have to be classed with a rotation and there would be no such thing as a particle that is its own antiparticle, as strange as that might sound, for it would depend on just the rotational direction of the particle itself. These things can be tested in theory. Interestingly, without the clockwise or anticlowise zitter motion, the free photon is a boson with spin 1. In order to make two electrons, you require at the very least, two photons with spin 1, which means their spins may as well be seen as a - 1/2 and a 1/2 as expected from the electron model, but negative sign is a dummy symbol as they do not cancel. Even a single photon is polarizable in space, but this is where our absolutist ideas on the spin configuration of spaces may become obscure, but not so obscure without an additional model. If we except not all photons are polarized in the same way, then photons can be reclassified under new spin definitions. In fact, I did similar things when constructing the unit vector in geometric space showing that the Dirac base was capable of being described under some unique matrices. Truth be told, there are in fact an infinite amount of possible matrices you can construct in the spin space. Potentially at the very least. Let's take a look at some of those matrices which appeared to be rotations in the configuration space very similar to what we call the Wick rotation (ref end) . Also it has been noticed the speed of light can vary depending on the polarizable nature as it "twists" in space. These twists could be what we think of as zitter motion as well since the twists of the photons produce an illusion of their being a rest mass, assuming a photon itself is actually massless. I think we may need to reconsider that a photon simply has the smallest mass, with the neutrino not far behind, meaning both would possess extremely small charges. It would also mean light is not a true constant by definition but fluctuates around the finite speed we call Celeritas.

Of course, the notion of spin and gravity has serious misunderstandings I suspect and it is strange for the following, for I looked into my own equations to see how the spin enters the gravitational medium. when we multiply by the time like gamma, through the equation, both sides must be considered:

γ_0 γ_0 R_μv = − (∂_μ·∂_v + Γ_μ·Γ_v)γ_0 γ_0 − 2 (∂_μ × Γ_v)^k γ_k γ_0

γ_0γ_0 = - 1

- R_μv = − (∂_μ·∂_v + Γ_μ·Γ_v) + 2 (∂_μ × Γ_v)^k γ_k γ_0

Removing negative signs we get

R_μv = (∂_μ·∂_v + Γ_μ·Γ_v) + 2 (∂_μ × Γ_v)^k γ_k γ_0

Replacing as a simplification γ_k γ_0 = a_k

R_μv = (∂_μ·∂_v + Γ_μ·Γ_v) + 2 (∂_μ × Γ_v)^k a_k

Now we replace for torsion which really gives the curvature with negative sign;

R_μv = (∂_μ·∂_v + Γ_μ·Γ_v) + 2 (∂_μ × Γ_v)^k γ_kγ_0 = - (∂_μ·∂_v + Γ_μ·Γ_v) + 2 (∂Ω_μv/∂t)^k a_k

Because of the definition of torsion

∂_μ × Γ_v = - ∂Ω_μv/∂t

Back to geometric algebra ~ remember how I defined the curvature tensor? It was meddled about with to produce it in the form

R_μv = [∇_μ,∇_v] = (∂^k_μv γ_kγ_1γ_2γ_3 + iσ ⋅ Γ^k_μv γ_k γ_o)^2

In which I concentrated on the solution for the connection as;

∇ = - ∂^k γ_k + σ ⋅ Γ^k γ_k γ^5

We noted which made this a new idea was to attach the timlike matrix to the part which would produce torsion ~ which too measured in units of timelike space. We will undo that approach and I'll investigate a different solution, similar to before but is a stronger version of linearized gravity;

γ_0 R_μv = (∂^k_μ γ_k γ_0  −  Γ^k_μγ_k γ_1γ_2γ_3) γ_0 (∂^j_v γ_j γ_0  −  Γ^j_vγ_jγ_1γ_2γ_3)

= ∂^k_μ γ_k γ_0 γ_0 ∂^j_v γ_j γ_0
− ∂^k_μ γ_kγ_0 γ_0 Γ^j_v γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3 − Γ^k_μγ_k γ_1γ_2γ_3 γ_0 ∂^j_v γ_jγ_0
+ Γ^k_μγ_k γ_1γ_2γ_3 γ_0 Γ^j_vγ_jγ_1γ_2γ_3

Here we make use of γ_0 γ_0 = - 1 and we get

= − ∂^k_μ γ_k ∂^j_v γ_j γ_0
+ ∂^k_μ γ_k Γ^j_v γ_j γ_1γ_2γ_3  − Γ^k_μγ_k γ_1γ_2γ_3  ∂^j_v γ_j 
+ Γ^k_μγ_k γ_1γ_2γ_3 Γ^j_vγ_jγ_1γ_2γ_3 γ0

= − ∂^k_μ γ_k ∂^j_v γ_j γ_0
+ ∂^k_μ γ_k Γ^j_vγ_jγ_1γ_2γ_3 − Γ^j_vγ_jγ_1γ_2γ_3  ∂^k_μ γ_k
− Γ^k_μγ_k Γ^j_v γ_j γ0

We get a similar commutator as we have seen before

= − ∂_μ·∂_v γ0
+  ∂^k_μ Γ^j (γ_k  γ_j −  γ_j  γ_k) γ_1γ_2γ_3
− Γ_μ·Γ_v γ0

This yields a gravitational Poynting vector

γ_0 R_μv = − (∂_μ·∂_v + Γ_μ·Γ_v)γ_0 − 2 (∂_μ × Γ_v)^k γ_k

Unaware of a gravitational analogue I knew though there would be such cases in literature...

L.M. de Menezes
(Submitted on 29 Jan 1998)

"The gravitational analog of the electromagnetic Poynting vector is constructed using the field equations of general relativity in the Hilbert gauge. It is found that when the gravitational Poynting vector is applied to the solution of the linear mass quadrupole oscillator, the correct gravitational quadrupole radiation flux is obtained. Further to this, the Maxwell-like gravitational Poynting vector gives rise to Einstein's quadrupole radiation formula. The gravitational energy-momentum (pseudo) tensor obtained is symmetric and traceless. The former property allows the definition of angular momentum for the free gravitational field. "

This is not a quantum polarization from my model however, its existence appears to be related soley to torsional effects. So where is the torsion in the math? Let us go through it.

This is a very rough albeit, not very well written article. I consider myself as a pure physicist but not a mathematician. There are subtle differences.
  • Flummoxed likes this

#2 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1044 posts

Posted 12 February 2020 - 05:22 AM

This is a very good read, it nearly missed my attention. I am going to read it again, when I have time.

But I have some simple questions

1 How do you define a fourth dimension what properties does it have and how does it interconnect with other regions of space, are you thinking a membrane, like the holographic principle?

2 Why is polarization of space considered new? Radio waves for example travel by polarization.

3 Length contraction of space ? I have posted some links to papers on this subject, not written by me. It would appear to an obvious conclusion that relativistic electrons orbiting nuclei experience this . Length contraction is dependent on the flux density :) vacuum density of space, or is it, Unruh radiation? becomes apparent when objects are moving fast.



#3 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3429 posts

Posted 13 February 2020 - 03:59 AM

This is a very good read, it nearly missed my attention. I am going to read it again, when I have time.
But I have some simple questions
1 How do you define a fourth dimension what properties does it have and how does it interconnect with other regions of space, are you thinking a membrane, like the holographic principle?
2 Why is polarization of space considered new? Radio waves for example travel by polarization.
3 Length contraction of space ? I have posted some links to papers on this subject, not written by me. It would appear to an obvious conclusion that relativistic electrons orbiting nuclei experience this . Length contraction is dependent on the flux density :) vacuum density of space, or is it, Unruh radiation? becomes apparent when objects are moving fast.


Polarization of space isn't actually new, I only discovered that the notion had been written about when I envisioned the drag effects of gravity on the surrounding environment, but what has confused people is how torsion has been simply neglected from general relativity simply because it is the simplest of the limits. Even Einstein admitted he wasn't sure how to describe how torsional effects would work in spacetime, but IF Einstein had been still alive, I am sure he would have eventually understood even his own theory. Keep in mind also, when Einstein was trying to unify the physics, he didn't even have any notion of the strong force at the time, so his picture was incomplete.

When it comes to the first question, I am thinking more along the lines of entanglement, and for theast question, yes, I am thinking also along these lines, have been for a while.

#4 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1044 posts

Posted 13 February 2020 - 05:36 AM

I had a couple of extra questions I did not think of yesterday until I was walking out of my front door.

 

1) Why do you insist a photon has mass? inertia and mass are one and the same are they not.  

 

Under SED mass depends on inertial direction. An electron has omnidirectional inertia, and a photon has mono directional inertia. I cant find the paper I am thinking off at the moment but here is a discussion on the subject https://www.research...ectrons_inertia the first couple of answers are interesting to me at least. :(

 

are you having a convergence :) with either holographic gravity or emergent gravity perhaps? :)   

 

2) Edit  I cant remember what the other question was :( which is annoying, but I think there was an apparent contradiction in what I read in your OP, I will have to read the OP again, can any one else spot a contradiction in the OP?

How does a 5 dimensional universe spin, where is its centre ? 


Edited by Flummoxed, 14 February 2020 - 04:21 AM.


#5 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3429 posts

Posted 14 February 2020 - 06:15 AM

It spins relative to itself, just as when a universe gets larger the spin decays, this is what dark flow is, it is the residue of a primordial spin. If you like we can detect the centre, so long as we accept dark flow as what is being suggested here.

Yes energy and mass are the same, so I believe you are thinking on the same page as myself. It's just a rough translation of more... Incompleteness to our absolutist notions on the mainstream.

There is definitely a relationship to entropic theories but it is not a holographic theory because even that is an oversimplification... In fact, it is curious you have asked this as I have wrote something about the thermodynamics and how it could be translated into Arun and Sivarams extended equivalence pinciple. I will post that now...

#6 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3429 posts

Posted 14 February 2020 - 06:16 AM

Black Hole Curvature Loss and Thermodynamics

1. If a black hole is very hot, then it is giving more energy to the environment.

2. If a black hole is very large, it tends to give off less energy to the environment.

But

1. A small black hole while having a larger internal curvature, exerts less gravity in its environment than...

2. A large black hole which has little internal curvature but exerts a much larger curvature due to observation from the outside

In terms of heat, from the laws of thermodynamics, heat can only flow in a classical sense to cooler bodies. Only in the special quantum case where particles are entangled does this effect seem reversed. The strange but beautifully symmetric world of quantum mechanics truly is a world-back-to-front when meeting commonsense. So let's leave those ideas for another date and concentrate on the simplest of arguments.

As a black hole expands, it does so by eating matter and energy, but this you would think contributes to a large curvature inside the system except this does not appear to be the case at all, it just means its external gravitational field, say observed by some astronaut outside the horizon as being much stronger than one around the size of a proton. Just as it can be demonstrated from firm mathematics, that observers inside a very large black hole actually do not observe its density to be as high as commonsense would expect. Arun and Sivaram explained this with quite some detail but I expanded the arguments from the laws of black for observers inside the system (Parallel Universes, 1985, Dr. Wolf).

We take ourselves to the idea then, that curvature is lost from a black hole in similar ways to how heat may escape a system in a semi-classical sense. (1) And of course for this to make sense a reverse must be true in which the micro black hole is giving off more radiation due to a larger internal curvature. What came first, curvature or energy? A well known question from the old times when physicists where asking such questions about what came first, the chicken or the egg, again, read Dr. Wolf's book for more details. The only real reasons I keep mentioning his book, was because I inherited it off my late grandfather, and it was which that led me into the philosophy of science and seeded my interest in physics.

(1) Just as if we added heat to a black hole, perhaps quantum mechanics plays stranger roles at ranges that are applicable to such laws. For instance, entanglement shows that a quantum system that is entangled can behave in an anti symmetric way to the usual laws we observe governing heat flow. In such a theoretical case, it may be possible to hypothesise a micro black hole may not always radiate the way we expect, this may depend for instance on whether the black hole is being observed. Hence why, many scientists have suspected, that if there was any observer outside the universe watching it, it could potentially freeze its evolution, however this is not an exact case because of the anti zeno effect, meaning we cannot exactly rule out that some superintelligence is watching out universe as it grows. This also means that potentially a micro black hole can either expand or contract due to interactions with its environment through anl decoherence of its surrounding environment. This could also be a reason to be suspect to whether we should even attempt higher energy levels in particle accelerators just to prove a black hole exists, because the rules are not so simple. Truth be told, we cannot be fully sure whether the micro black will always decay, but one thing I am certain about is that they cannot exist in any ground state form.

#7 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3429 posts

Posted 14 February 2020 - 06:17 AM

So what does it tell us now about the nature of gravity? All the same things as I said before, there are no gravitons, energy responds to the medium in accord to the stress energy tensor and applies to both radiation and all matter. This means the quantization of space is no particular particle, per se. It just means that the vacuum is not nothing, it has physical qualities but not the kind we associate to any specific field associated to quantum mechanics (unless we speak of all fields contributing a curvature in the ground state) , though it remains possible electromagnetic interactions can play the role of the elasticity - all the while you may think that is even a quantization of space, but we need to think about it in the correct manner. Moreover, an aether can have mobility due to the Ricci flow, but does not mean it is associated to a specific particle either, it has to apply to all forms of matter and energy that do not require such a quantization leading to a naive graviton model. I say naive because the notion of quantizing gravity, as amazing as it may seem, just simply wasn't from the first principles of relativity. Einstein didn't even know of the strong force when he was developing his own Unified Theory but he seems to have been misled by the particle-field understanding of the time, forgetting that his own theory of gravity was in fact a pseudo force. Anyone intelligible with physics should know by now, that we do not quantize pseudo forces like we do with actual quantum fields. We should always ignore ideas of motion that is undetectable also, because it is rooted within the philosophy of science that if one cannot observe a particle motion, you cannot simply impose it because it sounds good. You must equally have good experimental reasons to conclude that such a motion in an aether theory has to exist. Fortunately, the Ricci flow is a heat equation for a gravitational aether, but this seems more related to thermodynamics that applies to how particles flow and how they respond to space (and seems related to thermodynamic entropy theories) . But at least we get to retain that the aether is not stationary, for if it was, space could not expand. The physicality of space to me from these conclusions, is simply the laws governing classical mechanics where the fuzziness of the quantum is just a lack of information we can gain from the system at a given moment. Just how the uncertainty principle is not rooted in a system governed by random actions but rather something related to the amount of information we can extract from the system based on complimentary values. Such expense of information for another even exists in classical mechanics, it is not something special to quantum mechanics alone. Just as noncommutation of observables is a case of quantum mechanics alone, even classical systems obeyed noncommutative mathematics. Nevertheless, it seems also relevant to add that classical mechanics will persist to be a special limit of any quantum case, though to this statement, we must ask, can the quantum be determined by the large scale structure? Weinberg certainly thought so as he attempted to implement the Hubble parameter into his own mass equation formula. I did some extensions on that as well, by rewriting it in terms of the gravitational charge, by being impressed by Lloyd Motz original idea in which can explain a heirarchy of mass, but not one associated to a Planck mass, because by doing so, we would argue stable, perfect refrigerators exist in nature, which I showed strongly is probably the wrong conclusion.

#8 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1044 posts

Posted 14 February 2020 - 10:57 AM

It spins relative to itself, just as when a universe gets larger the spin decays, this is what dark flow is, it is the residue of a primordial spin. If you like we can detect the centre, so long as we accept dark flow as what is being suggested here.

Yes energy and mass are the same, so I believe you are thinking on the same page as myself. It's just a rough translation of more... Incompleteness to our absolutist notions on the mainstream.

There is definitely a relationship to entropic theories but it is not a holographic theory because even that is an oversimplification... In fact, it is curious you have asked this as I have wrote something about the thermodynamics and how it could be translated into Arun and Sivarams extended equivalence pinciple. I will post that now...

 

Entangled particles separated by a distance can be viewed as one particle. From the holographic idea is their centre a membrane connecting potentially all points in space, what shape does an electron wave have compared to a photon? Are they spinning in different ways around the same centre/membrane. Is this the concept you are talking about when you mention primordial spin. 

 

Entropic theories are a very interesting line of enquiry. I suspect you are buying into Verlinde a little   :wink:



#9 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1044 posts

Posted 15 February 2020 - 02:32 AM

Is Primordial spin an over complication? and a dangerous assumption with very little if no evidence for such a thing.?

 

A model should only be as complicated as it needs to be and no more. 

 

Ricci flow appears to satisfy a model for the development of the universe without primordial spin, and the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating not slowing.

 

I suppose it could be assumed at the quantum level, virtual particles could have a spin or oscillate into and out of existence, and radiation pressure causes the expansion, giving some sort of accumulated spin effect. Why would the spin effect ever need to slow down? 

 

With my simple way of looking at things, spin does appear to be the weakest link in your argument.! 



#10 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3429 posts

Posted 16 February 2020 - 11:59 AM

No it's not dangerous at all, in fact the universe should have had a spin due to Poincare symmetries. Its just that the spin decays as a universe grows linearly as Hoyle and Narlikar showed.

#11 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3429 posts

Posted 16 February 2020 - 12:01 PM

But no the spin is necessary, even peices of space can spin, this is how galaxies can spin in opposite directions, even though there is an excess difference, meaning there is a preferred spin direction in galaxies. It would also answer chirality issue underlying why there is more matter than antimatter.

Edited by Dubbelosix, 16 February 2020 - 12:01 PM.


#12 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1044 posts

Posted 16 February 2020 - 12:18 PM

But no the spin is necessary, even peices of space can spin, this is how galaxies can spin in opposite directions, even though there is an excess difference, meaning there is a preferred spin direction in galaxies. It would also answer chirality issue underlying why there is more matter than antimatter.

 

Is nt this the crux of the spin argument, the entire universe spinning altogether, or tiny parts all spinning separately in different directions giving an accumulative effect which can be regarded as a spinning universe. 


  • Dubbelosix likes this

#13 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1044 posts

Posted 19 February 2020 - 03:50 AM

Like has also been mentioned by you on an earlier thread, radiation pressure could also be a cause for the expansion of the universe.

 

Spin implies things are being thrown outwards, radiation pressure implies things are being pushed outwards due to an expansion not unlike your Ricci flow. 

 

Which is it to be, one or the other or both? Spin causing expansion, or pressure/Ricci flow causing expansion. ?  



#14 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3429 posts

Posted 19 February 2020 - 04:06 AM

Like has also been mentioned by you on an earlier thread, radiation pressure could also be a cause for the expansion of the universe.
 
Spin implies things are being thrown outwards, radiation pressure implies things are being pushed outwards due to an expansion not unlike your Ricci flow. 
 
Which is it to be, one or the other or both? Spin causing expansion, or pressure/Ricci flow causing expansion. ?


They are probably unified in some way, or maybe not... Not quite got my finger on it yet, but if my hunch is right, they are all playing roles in one way or another.