Space-Time Curviture

[IDMclean]

I would like to take this oppertunity to discuss General Relativity and Quantum Theory and what ever may relate to the Topic at Hand:

 

Gravity. What models are there and what do they entail?

 

The particular that I am interested in is Einstien's famous Guv = 8πruv. As I understand it this equation and Idea maybe able to unite QT and GR. I believe there is a major falisy of the scientifc community on the subject of gravity/space-time curviture.

 

The equation states that Mass tells Space-Time how to bend and Space-Time tells Mass how to move.(as I understand it)

Now I know that in QT we have waht is called probablility density denoted as:

ψ(x, y, z, t)

this is based on the wave format of mass and energy.

now I did notice something. that it is the rest probablility.

I was curious how Lorentz's transformation equations and Space-Time fit into the P-D equations of QT.

if I am not mistaken Mass contracts along the x axis of movement as it accerates. The X axis is not fixed and only denotes the line along which the mass is moving. so I propose that if something moved along all axises at the same time would they also not contract?

 

It would be useful to have some extra minds work on this with me. I would prefer the use of math, full and unabridged, as it helps to clarify what is happening and keep terms clear cut. Though please jump in with whatever you got.

[Tormod]

The X axis is not fixed and only denotes the line along which the mass is moving. so I propose that if something moved along all axises at the same time would they also not contract?

 

Could you possibly give an example of an object moving along more than one axis?

[GAHD]

hmm, would acceleration along the x axis combined with rotational acceleration in the y AND z axies count?

[IDMclean]

hmm, would acceleration along the x axis combined with rotational acceleration in the y AND z axies count?

 

Umm as much as I would like to say yes. I don't think so.

 

As for example the best I can give is imagine a sphere. Not of mass mind you but of Space-time a Quanta of such a thing. it is nothing in a sence. Distance perhaps.

 

Now this sphere wouldn't qualify unless it uniformially expanded retaining it's sphere shape meaning all "edges" are equal distance from the center. Also take into concideration that this sphere is expanding outward or inward at the speed of light, c. so it is subject to relativistic effects or rather is a relativistic effect. it would be accelerating at the rate c along several equal but oppisite axises. each could be concidered x.

 

So that lorentz tranformation equations hold true for it particularly of t' and x'. Perhaps I'm wrong or misspoken.

[IDMclean]

Ok what I was getting at was this.

Concider the idea that Space-Time was interelated with Mass-Energy. they are but I mean on a more definite and intimate relationship.

Imagine it like this. A sphere within a sphere within a sphere. Our three spheres would be representing Space-Time as the outer most. Mass-Energy as the next. and Charge as the Center Sphere.

 

Though I did consider the possibility of charge being the middle sphere.

 

What becomes crusial in this idea is these main questions:

Does everything have charge. Not net charge but charge period. I believe photons do. because of the equation c = (u0)(e0) which has to do with the magnetic and electric fields.

 

Also I need more information about Einstiens Field Equation on Space-Time.

 

So back to the concept. now imagine if these three spheres interacted in ways. When Space-Time expands then Mass-Energy contracts. and vise versa. I need to know if charge is constant to comment on it's interaction in this Concept. Now one knows that Mass-Energy is strictly conserved. Also we know that there is a speed limit for the universe, c. As such from this I draw the conclusion that Mass-Energy can grow no larger than it's Space-Time sphere Shrinks. That their boundries may meet but may never cross. So that Mass-Energy is bound by Space-Time. Mass-Energy may be found anywhere within it's S-T Sphere but never outside.

 

This to me would be in agreement with Einstien's SR and GR theories. would explain to me Length contraction and the Theory of the expanding/collapsing universe.

 

If my concept is correct then it would mean to me that:

1) Time is Quantasized.

2) Space is Quantasized.

3) Mass is Quantasized.

4) indirectly Gravitational Force is Quantasized.

 

and the golden egg:

 

*) The waveform equation for mass. The schrodinger equations. Would fit into this model. The Probability density is as shows:

ψ(x, y, z, t)

ψ'(x', y', z', t')

 

i also would like to go one step further and postulate that:

t(x, y, z)

t'(x', y', z')

 

 

P.S. I so eagerly await my books on QT and Classical Mechanics.

[Bo]

Not net charge but charge period. I believe photons do. because of the equation c = (u0)(e0) which has to do with the magnetic and electric fields.

Welll the photon IS the (quantum of the) magnetic field. so it is obvious that it should have some connection, however this means that the photon couples to charged particles. I don't see any reason why you should conculde from this that the photon is charged. (the fact that i can kick a ball doesn't mean i'm round...)

 

When Space-Time expands then Mass-Energy contracts. and vise versa.

1) First of all: why? Nowhere in your discussion above this conclusion is evident...

2) space time is always expanding (big bang etc) so we're constantly losing energy? whaa i'm melting! (but serious: are you doubting energy conservation here?)

 

eed to know if charge is constant to comment on it's interaction in this Concept.

yes; that is: charge is thought to be conserved; in each process the net initial and final charge are to be the same. (btw in your model you could also inlcude hypercharge, colorcharge, baryon number, lepton number, parity, all are quantities that are thought to be conserved (under certain or all processes))

 

Now one knows that Mass-Energy is strictly conserved. Also we know that there is a speed limit for the universe, c.

 

-if you want energy to be conserved, then what is the meaning of the size of the sphere (it shrinks and grows and stuff...)

- the speed limit c is defined in space time only, so i don't see why the conclusion on the movement of the spheres (which don't live in space time, since spacetime IS one of the spheres) could be effected by the limit of c.

 

....all kind of things are quantised....

why oh why? if your spheres are completely smooth, then there is no reason for quantisation effects to occur..

 

he waveform equation for mass. The schrodinger equations.

- there is only 1 schrodinger equation :) (that i know of...)

- i don't see any reason why the Schrodinger equation, (or particle/wave duality for that matter, which is crucial for the schrodinger equation) arises from your model...

 

Bo

[IDMclean]

Ok good questions.

 

I've found some Flaws in my basic assumetions. Time does not exsist. It is not seperate or independent but rather not a basic quanity/quality. So this changes some of my views.

 

Any Case.

As for the expansion theory of the universe. I hold no belief in such a Thing. I Think that the Mass-Energy in this universe is conserved. I believe that Space-Time Quanta are tied to Mass-Energy. That Mass-Energy becomes Space-Time. This would be the expansion of Space-Time. Further that Space-Time becomes Mass-Energy as Mass becomes Energy. This would be the contraction of the Space-Time.

 

I find the Expansion and Contraction to possibly be true because of the equations:

Gμv = 8πrμv (an Einstein field Equation)

x' = γ(x - vt)

 

Space-Time contains and Binds the Mass-Energy within it. Mass-Energy cannot and does not exsist outside of Space-Time as such Space-Time can not contract more than a given ammount and Mass-Energy cannot Expand Larger than Space-Time. Also Somewhere I think charge fits into here.

 

It seems to Me that under this assumetion Space-Time would be limited by some number determined through the Mass-Energy interaction. I think this limitation is the Speed limit of the universe.

 

I draw this conclusion from the fact that "Gravity" or Space-Time ripple propagate, according to Eistein and others, at the speed of light.

 

I feel the Time-independent Field equations of Einstien may hold the answers I seek.

 

I can't express my thoughts in mathematics. As such it is a knowledge most unsatisfactory.

 

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/EinsteinFieldEquations.html

http://ws5.com/spacetime/

[IDMclean]

I feel kinda Ignored... ;)

 

Anyway. I've been reading my books and I think I have some major holes in the whole of my assumetions.

 

The G, is called the Einstein tensor, I think. I was curious to know if anyone knows much about the Field equations?

 

I would Also like to know if anyone knows of any good programs (shareware or Freeware) to represent Particle interactions and stuff... Digital Tools of the physist.

 

I need to know if the ElectroMagneticWeak parts of Force are accounted for in the Gravitional Attraction equations. And Strong also.

 

I don't understand the speed of light Equation. c=1/Sqr(u0E0) = 299792458 ms^-1.

 

The way I see it is that the Speed of Light is constant for a reason specific to individual particles not the entire universe. I think this is due to distance contraction/transformation. that each particle is an island unto it's self.

 

Further I think that as you approach a particle distance changes. that relativistic effects come into play. and I think that that would account for the difference in Electroweak Strong and Gravitional Force.

 

I also Think that Gravitional Force is the culmination of the Attraction of all other forces (which As I've postulated are a single force or perhaps two different qualities of force). I think that Spacetime curviture is related to and proportional to Mass-Energy. That the Speed of Light is a result of Spacetime and Mass-Energy.

 

I have read carefully and I'm certain that Charge is the Key factor here. Photons are Charge. Mass is collections of Charge. A photon is a Electric and Magnetic Field Vibrating Counter to each other. Each Equal and oppisite. I gathered that Much. I think that All Mass-Energy is composed of Photons or rather of Magnetic Fields and Electric Fields.

 

I think that a proton is Strong Magnetic or q+ and electrons are q- Strong Electric and that Neutrons are Equal Fielded or q0.

 

Will anyone Confirm or deny that please? Anything that would support or destroy my postulate.

 

(This is all Copyright©)

 

No offfence to anybody.

[maddog]

The G, is called the Einstein tensor, I think. I was curious to know if anyone knows much about the Field equations?

...

I need to know if the ElectroMagneticWeak parts of Force are accounted for in the Gravitional Attraction equations. And Strong also.

 

I don't understand the speed of light Equation. c=1/Sqr(u0E0) = 299792458 ms^-1.

 

The way I see it is that the Speed of Light is constant for a reason specific to individual particles not the entire universe. I think this is due to distance contraction/transformation. that each particle is an island unto it's self.

 

Further I think that as you approach a particle distance changes. that relativistic effects come into play. and I think that that would account for the difference in Electroweak Strong and Gravitional Force.

 

I also Think that Gravitional Force is the culmination of the Attraction of all other forces (which As I've postulated are a single force or perhaps two different qualities of force). I think that Spacetime curviture is related to and proportional to Mass-Energy. That the Speed of Light is a result of Spacetime and Mass-Energy.

 

I have read carefully and I'm certain that Charge is the Key factor here. Photons are Charge. Mass is collections of Charge. A photon is a Electric and Magnetic Field Vibrating Counter to each other. Each Equal and oppisite. I gathered that Much. I think that All Mass-Energy is composed of Photons or rather of Magnetic Fields and Electric Fields.

 

I think that a proton is Strong Magnetic or q+ and electrons are q- Strong Electric and that Neutrons are Equal Fielded or q0.

 

Will anyone Confirm or deny that please? Anything that would support or destroy my postulate.

 

(This is all Copyright©)

 

No offfence to anybody.

If you are reading from a book which is it ? Knowing would help me.

 

1. I forget which letter Einstein used (it was usually odd). I am still studying tensors myself.

3. There is no working GUT (Grand Unified Theory) yet. So the Gravitational Field equations written by

Einstein do not account for the Weak or Strong Force. It was his last attempt to have a complete working

merging of EM and Gravity forces. Einstein did not finish.

4. "Speed of Light Equation" is derived from Maxwell's equations.

5. ??? :o

6. This was the start of Gauge theory. Properties of forces morph as to resolution of their interaction

(Gauge).

7. ??? :o :o

8. I think you might need to read it again even more thoroughly. Photons do NOT have charge!

By Maxwell's equations the E & B fields of light are orthogonal to each other (right angles) All a photon

is a quantized packetization of this EM field.

9. Do you mean "Strong" as in Strong force ? If so, then NO. Strong force is color force operated by

SU(3) while EM is operated by U(1). These are different groups. A proton and neutron are very nearly

the same particle with a different isospin. This was Heisenberg's way to handle both before the notion

the Strong Force was created. With QCD we know it is really the composition of different quarks.

(I believe p = uud = 2/3, 2/3, -1/3; n = udd = 2/3, -1/3, -1/3)

For a link on this goto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarks

 

Did I confirm or deny enough. :o

 

Maddog

[IDMclean]

Ok good start.

 

The books are:

a) Classical Mechanics, 3rd Edition by Goldstein Poole & Safko

:o Quantum Mechanics, 2nd Edition by R. Shankar

c) CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 85th Edition

d) CRC Standard Mathematics Tables and Formulae

e) CRC Standard Probability and Statistics tables and Formulae, Student Edition

f) Physics for Scientist and Engineers

 

Most of my postes have been my ramblings, and postulates and bits of information attempting to Expand my knowledge of the subjects or as checkable proofs.

 

The Last Post in particular is mostly Postulates and Questions.

 

I know that there is no Unified Field Theory. It is that very thing that I am attempting to resolve. My base Posulate is that All the seemingly different Forces are the same Force on different Scales.

 

My reading has yeilded that Photons and Mass via proxy are packets of Charge. the Charge doesn't show up in the final because it cancels out. but the Photon by nature is Charge. ElectroMagnetism Says it right their. A photon is composed of two equal and oppisite Fields of Charge. The Electric Field of Freespace and the Magnetic Field of Freespace. I think the c = 1/sqr(u0E0) = 299792458ms^-1 is done by maxwell... to lazy to get up and go get my other Physics book. The main thing to be aware of here is that the photon has no NET Charge not that it doesn't have charge. Which is lending to my postulate that the Photon is the or it's constituent fields are the building block of the universe.

 

Whew... Let me sit down and take a breather.

[maddog]

I know that there is no Unified Field Theory. It is that very thing that I am attempting to resolve. My base Posulate is that All the seemingly different Forces are the same Force on different Scales.

This is in essence is Gauge Theory as an attempt at GUT (from the 70s). I was frustrated that I didn't

really understand that until the early 90s. :o

Which is lending to my postulate that the Photon is the or it's constituent fields are the building block of the universe.

Have you been talking with WebFeet ? He thinks this too. :o

 

Maddog

[IDMclean]

WebFeet? Who? What?

 

Ack nevermind.

The Way I see it is that The Magnetic Field and the Electric fields make up the photon and the photon makes up all the other stuff.

 

I Need to know if the Force of gravity equation takes into account the attraction due to the other forces? I some how doubt the original does as Newton had no way of knowing about ElectroMagnetism. In Which Case I'm sure I Can account for the oddities of Gravity.

 

I'm pretty sure that distance is Relative. If you drew a circle then drew another around it and kept doing that then added together the distance inbetween each circle you would get the radius of the larget circle. In realality I think this wouldn't work. I think as you approach the center of a particle the Distance contracts. so the Smaller the circle the shorter the distance. This assumetion (gut feeling) comes from SR and GR. Further I Assume from Einstein's work that All particles are their own Absolute Reference Frame. It would work that way I think.

 

It also behooves me to mention that this relates to some math me and my brother did on a blackhole theory and I came to the conclusion that a black hole is a ball of Photons. not a hole at all. which is where I started thinking of Photons as the basic unit. and it makes sense to me. I just need to get the facts that support or deny it.

 

Think of it like this. We have a orange in slices and an apple in slices. you put them together and you get apple oranges that don't fit. if you have two oranges instead then any combination results in the same thing an orange. (gasp... Confusion)

 

Theories and such that support as far as I can see.

Wave-Particle Dualality

Mass-energy Equivilency

Electro-Magnetic Theory

Wave Theory