With Serial Instantiated Existance in a Real, Physical, Discrete Space, G/G

[mcompengr]

[( Look, tthese are all the bases which presented, and they all seem to be covered, if poorly. Show me a theory

which does that if nothing else. This machine will start and hum, on the first try. Where's DeGrassy when I need him? ]

 

With Serial Instantiated Existance in a Real, Physical, Discrete Space, G/G

 

G. More on Gluons and Gravitons

Everything known and loved, all that is hoped for and believed in about them would remain intact, except that instead of being particles that move they would be "stationary", cooperating, "surface" aspects of the discrete space regions, doing their thing through, by and because of the bent spaces caused by the very existence of strong-interacting matter. One space-time point to another: "How do you like it? I'm a proton now, pass it on."

Subject to special relativity, every space-time point could automatically know the state of the whole universe, by virtue of how its own little interface to it was being affected by it. The universe would be object-oriented in design.

Gluons:

If something gets transferred, it would exist in a discrete-space region, and so it would be a particle. But, another mechanism may be more accurate something like: limited, virtually physical contact, with cohesion and repulsion, bending and flexing. Keeping in mind that even as particles, gluons would just be space(s) "doing" something. (What do gluons do?) From "color force screening" to "quark Cooper pairs", models are supportable.

Gluons could operate both like soap bubbles and surface tension, too, hoping to explain the strong force's odd range and strength aspects. They and gravitons would somehow "be the surfaces" of all discrete-spaces however "occupied". They would thereby embody that aspect of space which bends, and which behaves like a field. They would still easily affect such matter as that which creates them (which occupies space), and so likewise and thus affect themselves (part of space).

A "gravity-well" seeming to match the energy necessary to pull all gravitating matter apart so that the density-ratio constant (omega) would be 1, does look at gravity from a different perspective, rather than one of pulling stuff together. So too, a strong-force metaphor could be made, one of pulling stuff together as opposed to pulling apart, as normally measured.

Asymptotic freedom sounds like parallel plates where the force required to pull them apart comes not from an attraction between them, but from the force needed to overcome the vacuum thus created. Bent-space could work that way.

The graviton-gluon would be to gravity-strong, as photon-boson are to EM-W. But, it's a matter of perspective: gravitons moving between matter, or matter "moving" between gravitons. Relatively speaking, it might not matter which if there is a one-to-one correspondence between discrete-spaces and gravitons.

An other eight-fold way

Rather than three color charges there would be a three way bent space effect.

tetrahedral quarks (gluons for effective)

corner edge face

0 pts 0 pts 0 pts

1 pt 1 pt 1 pt

2 pts 2 pts

In the context of connectivity for tetrahedral shaped quarks, gluons could be thought of in terms of points of virtual contact. For two quarks facing each other corner to corner there are two possibilities, one or zero points of contact. For quarks facing each other edge to edge there would be two, one or zero, and face to face: 3, 2, 1 or 0. Three points of contact would not be allowed, for technical reasons, as that would be like having two particles with a common surface.

One or zero points of contact between two corners, edges or faces could represent pairs of color or anti-color three different ways, covering the six pairs in the current gluon model. Now coincidentally, the ratios between base, height, surface and volume of the regular tetrahedron contain the radical square roots of 2 and 3, so as do the remaining gluons' terms, so the two, 2-point contact possibilities (from edge to edge, and face to face connectivity) want to cover for the two remaining gluons. Leaving nothing left over or left out of tables of color configuration. This geometric, physical source for color might hint that the same was possible for quantum exclusion. (In for a penny.)

With discrete space "loosely" tiled into regular tetrahedral shaped regions, and "contact" between them as described above, no two adjacent "occupied" regions could have the same exact connectivity because of having "occupied" neighbors in common. Exclusion a mysterious law, and a geometric reality. The filling of gaps differently in ultimate conflict somewhere. Bosons are like "unoccupied"?

If bosons couldn't care less about how their and their neighbors' discrete-spaces are connected, if at all, perhaps that could be related to rest mass and the effective absence of a surface or the absence of conserved particleness (baryon, lepton number). (Oddly quantized, and what of that at t=0, not the particles, but the conserved particleness? At the end of the day, units rule.) Leptons may have physical extent, but surface? (see: More on Anti-matter / Charge)

A final word

on the gluon: it's all about the quark. Even the difference between gluon jets and quark jets could be as quarks give up something verses quarks give up everything. Gluon jets could be like focused shock waves, rattling the discrete space such that energy becomes matter. It's imaginable for regular tetrahedral shapes to facilitate twelve-jet events in high-energy interactions, for anthropic reasons.

And, gravity too, comes from strong interacting particles.

[( But, what does spin mean for the graviton and gluon, in a real discrete space? One weird, and the other the same as the photon. If they carry the same force, would they need to be the same particle, as supposed here? Bent space as one strong, residual, and residue force. )]

[elfmotat]

I'll employ Ophiolite's checklist:

 

Your post fails on several levels.

• You are using terminology without apparently understanding what it means.
  • ​For example the words "state," "interference," (and about a dozen or so others), are technical words with technical definitions. You're using them in a nonsensical manner.
• In some cases your usage is exactly contrary to its meaning.
  • ​Asymptotic freedom, for example, has absolutely nothing to do with "parallel plates." It has to do with strong coupling at short distance scales.
• You have introduced terms that are not used in this branch of science, yet have failed to define them.
  • ​For example: "virtually physical contact," "geometric reality," etc.
• You have made assertions without providing any support.
  • ​You haven't explained why we're identifying particles with spacetime, how this is mathematically modeled, or how you can get testable predictions from any of this.
• You have made assertions that are directly contradicted by the evidence.
  • ​For example you say "gravity too, comes from strong interacting particles." That can't possibly be correct. We know for sure there are particles which interact gravitationally but not strongly.
• There is no logical connectivity between the points of your argument.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

Please review the Guidelines for Participating in Speculations Discussions

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

 

In particular, the questions "How could this be tested to ensure that it's true?" and "what problem with the mainstream theory does this new idea solve?"

 

[mcompengr]

!

Moderator Note

 

Please review the Guidelines for Participating in Speculations Discussions

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

 

In particular, the questions "How could this be tested to ensure that it's true?" and "what problem with the mainstream theory does this new idea solve?"

 

Elsewhere was made/supported: "the prediction that bent-spaces' effects will be shown to change linearly with distance below the tenth mm range." I.E. "some transitional world is proposed to exist between the quantum and classical where gravity is linear with distance.

 

Mathmatically, " the wavefunction amplitude would be shown to be repeating at some Planck precision, i.e,. not infinite but digitally near infinite. (Infinite not abeing number .)

 

The "title" should answer the second question. Every word literal and important, the thesis of a mechanism by which Strings or Matter Fields opperate, underneith, without regard to, or affect on "mainstream theory". "The new idea" is seeing all quantum mechanic weirdness addressed by one tiny hypothetical. This machine will start and hum the first time. Where's DeGrassy when I need him?

 

 

I won't do this again, I promise. The 32-page whole must be beyond guidance, but there is no referee-for-pay for foundational physics.

 

 

The prime mover is just that: with serial instantiated existence nothing can ever stop moving, if only to jitter, with relative position constantly changing at the bottom. "Downhill" mass/energy state transitions present themselves, and new states persist. Motion also persists, top to bottom, and the detailed aspects of the components and environment would automatically do the rest as far a

as emerging organized and complex systems go.

 

What about entropy, and the engineer's no-free-lunch?

 

With a real foundation acting like an entropy barrier, like some sort of a thermodynamics barrier, there is nowhere to go but up. As with the zero-point vacuum-energy so for fundamental particles: take away everything possible and they still exist, and by existing they move.

 

The line between quantum and classical worlds would be the "surface" of the basic discrete-spaces, with everything that exists being inside them and our world being entirely outside. In and out, two directions, one distributed dimension.

 

Now, the interface is all that matters in an object-oriented design. What happens on one side must needs be of no concern to the other. So, rather than describing another world, quantum mechanics would be the technical specification of an interface between worlds, the bottom for our universe.

 

"Up", or "out" the only direction, with "in" gone? The universe we know would be just half of one, prime dimension. Infinitely far away could be a comprehendible opposite pole for infinitely small, universal, existence-field poles.

 

A prime symmetry might be expected to be thus broken: half here and half who know where. Otherwise existence is scalar. The number two symmetry breaking would then be when something "moves". Until then everything that exists would be the same topologically.

 

Okay, the very bottom would be discrete space existence, the symmetry broken at the Big Bang, still ongoing but hidden. The gauge would be location. Then comes serial instantiated motion-existence with distance the gauge, and then to interactions and acceleration.

 

First nothing, then a constant, then a 1st derivative, and a 2nd derivative, and today's foundation would be the original prime hierarchy of symmetry breakings. Rather than a big bang, maybe it was a big pulse which pulsates yet.

 

For entertainment purposes only, but standing by the lexicon/usage.

 

[( The space-time foam, continuous and discrete meet? And, might only constructive interference be possible at such an interface? And, whatever happened to convection? With granularity so fine, objects in the prime "jitter" would be set up as if they were objects floating on a vibrating air table. With all things equal, any particular relative state of motion, if at all possible, ought to present itself quickly. Enthalpy-like, top to bottom, the actions going both ways, up and down, by different paths. Yet, how does the bottom "jitter" keep moving up? No way to stop, and nowhere else to go? Sublime osmosis of soliton waves, in a dimension which we can't completely see because we occupy only half of it, and because they start out moving impossibly fast and end up moving too slow to notice, with frequency and speed decreasing (?) by the inverse-square, from a center which is everywhere, and levels of organization are standing waves in what medium? )]

 

[( If, instead, the bottom must get knowablely smaller forever, then maybe quantum mechanics can provide an h-bar, coupling constant, impedance matching, termination factor for that, and so still be the barrier-bottom of our universe, because in a real physical discrete space things like radius can not be zero. )]

[Klaynos]

Did you see the post from elfmotat? I'd review it and again and review the link from swansont. You've not addressed the points made and continued to make the same mistakes (digitally close to infinite has no meaning).

It's difficult to critique any science if the language is not clear and concise (another reason why maths is required).

[swansont]

Elsewhere was made/supported: "the prediction that bent-spaces' effects will be shown to change linearly with distance below the tenth mm range." I.E. "some transitional world is proposed to exist between the quantum and classical where gravity is linear with distance.

Looking for something more specific than that. A description of an experiment, a particular result.

 

 

Mathmatically, " the wavefunction amplitude would be shown to be repeating at some Planck precision, i.e,. not infinite but digitally near infinite. (Infinite not abeing number .)

I, too, have no idea what that means.

[mcompengr]

 

Looking for something more specific than that. A description of an experiment, a particular result.

 

 

 

I, too, have no idea what that means.

 

"Don't bite my finger, look where it is pointing." -?

 

I don't see any science here at all. This weird sniping isn't it. I don't understand this at all. At least twice in a row, questions just answered are being asked. Measuring gravity below the 10 mm range has not been done yet. (What could be more specific?) The other experiment described would hope to find superposition a sequential reality. Past probability in its entirity would be history, time-sliced, into one (1) reality.

 

These are just simple, obvious conclusions. You don't have time to read and think, just react to words? You still don't dig the title. (My crappy write-up. I say one really, really tiny thing and then try to show that it might answer ALL questions.) Being foundational, it is of course it is a "synthetic statement" (Barrow, p.237).

 

Mathmatically (again): "Nothing would go to zero, including the 'infantesimal'."

[swansont]

 

I don't see any science here at all.

 

That's my line.

 

Measuring gravity below the 10 mm range has not been done yet.

 

Shouldn't there be some sort of cumulative effect of masses, or systematic shift, if gravity behaved differently over the first cm? Where's the model that shows how much of a shift there would be? (also, despite your protest, you did not mention this in the OP. "tenth" does not show up. You merely state that it was "made elsewhere")

[mcompengr]

You still ignore, or miss. The model is the title is the model, keeping in mind that

gravity is not a force, but rather bent-space's effect on the mass which has bent it

and through which it is "moving". Now, think about that as IF space is really real, no...

really, and always having discrete, really actual, real physical extent, everywhere and

always. (That's the one (1) premise)

 

"Made elsewhere" meant "posted earlier". We have trust or we have nothing.

I'll cease at 13 pages out of 32 total. Non-foundational theses refereeing costs

$100, plus a per page cost. Does sciencforums.net take Paypal??

 

-Martin

 

 

 

That's my line.

 

Shouldn't there be some sort of cumulative effect of masses, or systematic shift, if gravity behaved differently over the first cm? Where's the model that shows how much of a shift there would be? (also, despite your protest, you did not mention this in the OP. "tenth" does not show up. You merely state that it was "made elsewhere")

[John Cuthber]

 

" Measuring gravity below the 10 mm range has not been done yet.

guess again.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/sites/www.npl.washington.edu.eotwash/files/webfiles/publications/pdfs/prl98-021101.pdf

 

So, your idea predicts changes in the measured effect of gravity at distances below 10 mm.

Those measurements have been made.

The inverse square law still held.

So, you are wrong.

You can stop now.

[mcompengr]

guess again.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/sites/www.npl.washington.edu.eotwash/files/webfiles/publications/pdfs/prl98-021101.pdf

 

So, your idea predicts changes in the measured effect of gravity at distances below 10 mm.

Those measurements have been made.

The inverse square law still held.

So, you are wrong.

You can stop now.

 

 

 

How far is "below", amigo?? That changes nothing as hypothethical as serial instantiated existance in a real physical discrete space(s), as long as it doesn't go to zero.

 

Being proved wrong is great, considering the alternative of being wrong and not knowing it.

 

No, you are wrong, I can stop yesterday like I said twice already, except for as all the forthcoming questions.

 

-Martin

[Ophiolite]

With Serial Instantiated Existance in a Real, Physical, Discrete Space, G/G

I'm not very bright. I have no idea what the title means and you have suggested it is important. Will you walk me through it please? And I would appreciate it if you could so clearly and concisely, without all the little idiosyncratic personalisations.

[John Cuthber]

 

How far is "below", amigo?? That changes nothing as hypothethical as serial instantiated existance in a real physical discrete space(s), as long as it doesn't go to zero.

 

Being proved wrong is great, considering the alternative of being wrong and not knowing it.

 

No, you are wrong, I can stop yesterday like I said twice already, except for as all the forthcoming questions.

 

-Martin

Did you consider reading the paper I cited?

That tells you the answer: "We conducted three torsion-balance experiments to test the gravitational inverse-square law at

separations between 9.53 mm and 55µm,"