Jump to content

Mordred

Resident Experts
  • Content Count

    7284
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by Mordred

  1. Well to be honest the first step is to learn how emergence would arise in the particular field your modelling. Ie spacetime or other. This involves how that field is quantized. Once you quantize you have a finite group. Here is the thing in order to develop a fractal physics representation you must first learn the physics and how it is mathematically described. Then develop your fractal equivalent. QFT for example has emergent particle number density equations for every field that corresponds to that fields energy. So you will need to be clearer on what you want emergent
  2. Well don't give up hope. Your certainly not the first to look into fractal applications via the Mandelbrot set. If you Google a bit you can certainly find literature including some textbook references to guide you. However don't restrict yourself to image representations. Look into the graph reproductions and group representations. The purpose of physics isn't to produce pictures but to describe interactions and physical processes. It's not a theorem I am too familiar with as I tend to stick to the standardized gauge groups however this may provide some direction. (Note cellular automata ) has fractal qualities. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://scipost.org/SciPostPhys.6.1.007/pdf&ved=2ahUKEwimpP797_flAhUuJTQIHfklD7c4ChAWMAN6BAgIEAE&usg=AOvVaw229Pz3Qe3vKM846eMvTjgo
  3. Mordred

    Blob Theory

    So where is your thermodynamic formulas ? Where is your geometry ? Where is your finite portions of the infinite quantities ? Every infinite quantity contains a finite portion. Where is your cutoff for the finite portion ? What fields are you specifically describing ? Thermodynamics is involved in every physics theory. Let's start with a standard equation of state. [math]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/math] you now have a formula that describes energy density to pressure relations. Non relativistic matter experts zero pressure. Hrrm still not singular.
  4. Mordred

    Blob Theory

    What is Q phenomena or S ? You haven't defined those terms under physics laws. Do they affect mass or energy or fields or etc etc etc etc. If so how ? Let's put this bluntly you stated your 62 years old. So you obviously spent a lifetime in a career. If someone came along and told you how to do your job without knowing anything about it. You probably would ignore that person. This is what reading your hypothesis is like to me. You have none of the skills to describe your hypothesis under physics.
  5. Mordred

    Blob Theory

    There is nothing to prove or disprove in anything you have described. One cannot test wild bugger guesswork and conjecture. You something to workable to test.
  6. Mordred

    Blob Theory

    Then if it's the exclusive zone then Blob would not be a non reactive singularity. Now you see why you require math. You just verbally changed your description of blob from your OP.
  7. Mordred

    Blob Theory

    Actually you can work down to [math]10^{-43}seconds that will correspond to Planck time and Planck length. These are part of the limits of wavelength observable action. Google Planck units. The BB model starts at Planck temperature at the first unit of Planck time. Prior to that we cannot describe as you reach infinite degrees of freedom. Or other infinite quantities.
  8. Mordred

    Blob Theory

    Zero is rather meaningless by itself. Zero energy or absolute vacuum isn't a singularity condition. It is easy to describe a true vacuum in a given volume. [math]G^{\mu\nu} = 0 [/math] where [math]G^{\mu\nu} = R^{\mu\nu} - \frac 12 \mathcal Rg^{\mu\nu}[/math]
  9. Mordred

    Blob Theory

    Well first off you better ask yourself what physics and math describes as a singularity. I await your answer on that one. (I already know the answer but would like to see you answer that question.) Hint there is more than one condition.
  10. Mordred

    Blob Theory

    Try formal training. I do have degrees in Cosmology and particle physics not to mention a good 35 years of study.. I can post the above in Langrangian form if you like. Here is the trick. Physics can describe any particle or multiparticle interaction. In particular any observable interaction. It can do so with the Feymann path integrals as one example. Those equations describe the SO(10)MSM standard model of particle physics. You can find similar formalisms on the web. They are part of mainstream physics. Every equation above is tested by observational evidence. So let me ask you. Do you expect a word play description to match ?
  11. Mordred

    Blob Theory

    Might help if you realize all particles are not little bullets. The pointlike attributes is describable under the Compton and Broglie wavelength. The is no corpuscular (matter like) interior structure. In essence all particles are localized excitations of their respective fields. You want to master the SM model under particle physics then you have years ahead. Every interaction of the SM model involves the Langrangian of action. Which invariably involves kinematic displacement. Here is what your competing against. Here is the Standard model under kinematics that also involves thermodynamics, Einstein's famous e=mc^2 (though including momentum.) These formulas are Lorentz invariant via Dirac and Klien Gordon and include QM effects. [math]\mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}-\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{Yang-Mills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{|D_\mu h|^2-V(|h|)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}[/math] The above correlates to [math]\mathcal{G}=SU(3)_c\otimes SU(2)_L\otimes U(1)_Y[/math] Color, weak isospin, abelion Hypercharge groups. Couplings in sequence [math]g_s, g, \acute{g}[/math] [math]\mathcal{L}_{gauge}=-\frac{1}{2}Tr{G^{\mu\nu}G_{\mu\nu}}-\frac{1}{2}Tr {W^{\mu\nu}W_{\mu\nu}}-\frac{1}{4}B^{\mu\nu}B_{\mu\nu}[/math] Field strengths in sequence in last G W B tensors for SU(3),SU(2) and U(1) Leads to covariant derivative [math]D_\mu=\partial_\mu+ig_s\frac{\lambda_i}{2}G^i_\mu+ig\frac{\sigma_i}{2}W^i_\mu+igQ_YB_\mu[/math] Corresponds to [math]G_{\mu\nu}=-\frac{i}{g_s}[D_\mu,D_\nu][/math] [math]W_-\frac{I}{g}[D_{\mu}D_{\nu}][/math] [math]B_{\mu\nu}-\frac{I}{\acute{g}}[D_\mu,D_\nu][/math] The above is in covariant derivative form which has gauge invariance. It describes the covariant and contravariant terms of weak, Strong and EM fields. The Higgs in the same format is. [math]\mathcal{L}=(D_\mu H)^\dagger D^\mu H-\lambda(H^\dagger H-\frac{v^2}{2})^2[/math] v=246 GeV Quartic coupling [math]\lambda=m_h^2/2v^2=0.13[/math] [math]\langle H^\dagger H\rangle =v^2/2[/math] Fermions (matter content) (goal tie in CKMS and Pmns mixing angles (latter for leptons)) will require unity triangle... [math]\displaystyle{\not}D=\gamma D^\mu[/math] Now I ask you do you believe word play and verbal drescriptives compete to a model that can describe via mathematics it's observable actions upon itself and other particles ? Verbal descriptions is not enough. One can mathematically describe every particle or multiparticle interaction in nature. You asked where to start. Start with vector calculus.
  12. Mordred

    Blob Theory

    Read above first start with a GR descriptive of your geometry. Use the FLRW is you like to simplify. I have no idea how you plan to use an unreactive singularity but you will need to match current observation that is supported by math if you ever hope to have a workable modelm
  13. Mordred

    Blob Theory

    The start is already in place. There isn't a single observable interaction that cannot be described mathematically. Start with a geometry then place your interactions. No physics model works without a mathematical model of its kinematics.
  14. Mordred

    Blob Theory

    You could postulate that the blob theory is made up of pink unicorns all you want. You still require some measure of science in particular a testable theory which requires mathematics.
  15. I would think the contention lies more in the direction of the desire for a full TOE. A large body feels that as we have been so successful at unifying the other three forces into an effective gauge theory then we should also be able to do so with GR. In essence a full fetched renormalized quantum gravity. The problem being is that GR is well behaved as a low energy field theory but once you start hitting blackholes and other singularity conditions you get a range of energies where GR cannot fully describe within finite loop corrections.
  16. Brings to mind an older Arxiv article that I have always enjoyed. "Time before time" https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0408111&ved=2ahUKEwiUxYSA4ujlAhV6CTQIHZvIBNgQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3oHSPDc7wTNOPxHPmuXO3W
  17. K fair enough. In essence the above is correct.
  18. What your last is referring to is called cosmological time which uses time as per the mean average density. Which also sets the fundamental observer. (Don't confuse with a priveleged observer.)
  19. Ok you have the formula for two plane mirrors calculate that first then multiply by 3 and subtract 3 for the number of images that coincide.
  20. Well you might not consider divergences leading to infinite mass terms a problem. Others feel different yes there are methods to have effective cutoffs prior to Infinities as well as alternates to renormalization the divergences can often lead to other factors being involved.
  21. You have the essentials correct for the thermal equilibrium dropout sequence.
  22. Well quite frankly I find gauge symmetry and Gauge invariance incredibly useful. So I really don't see what the issue is. Perhaps the theory that works for you is loop quantum gravity. If you really want to understand particle mass cross section with regards to couplings study the CKMS and PMNS matrix. Particularly the particle family generations.
  23. Some solutions prefer the added detail such as the time taken specifically during the turnaround. Anyways I added it to show how it can be handled by using the four momentum. I had the time so figured some might learn from it.
  24. the end result once finished being latexed will give you the hyperbolic angle of rapidity I already provided that but am now typing in the proof. I will do the case of a rotating acceleration. anyways that part is done. That was the classic case when the twin does a turnaround. The turnaround will fall onto that hyperbolic rotation under constant acceleration for the duration of the turnaround. It isn't the case you presented but I wanted to show a case where acceleration affects the Lorentz transformations. Hopefully tomorrow I will have time to show how an emitter orbiting an observer around the z axis leads to [math]d\tau=\sqrt{1-\frac{wr^2}{c^2}}dt[/math] yes I was a little loose with some of the grammar distracted by wife while trying to latex all that in is distracting lol. PS I don't have any issue with the solution presented earlier this thread. Like I said wanted to show acceleration effects for the classic case as well.
  25. Google hyperbolic rotation of the the Minkowskii group. You should get a hyperbolic curve of [math]\frac {c^4}{g^2}[/math] if you use the proper four momentum As mentioned acceleration causes rapidity of the the Minkowskii group. This can be shown through a rotation or boost. A boost is a type of rotation. That is part of the solution for resolving the twin paradox. The twin that undergoes rapidity is the one that ages differently and breaks the symmetry of the Lorentz transforms. You do not seem to understand that the Minkowskii group relies upon the symmetry relation [math]\mu \cdot \nu=\nu \cdot \nu [/math] this is under constant velocity. When you undergo acceleration you perform a rotation of that relation Ok lets do the standard twin paradox first start with the four velocity [math]\mu^\mu=\frac{dx^\mu}{d\tau}=c\frac{dt}{dx\tau},\frac{dx}{d\tau},\frac{dy}{d\tau})[/math] then take [math]ds^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu[/math] you have 16 terms [math] ds^2=\eta_{00}(dx^0)^2+\eta_{01}dx^0dx^1+\eta_{02}dx^0dx^2+....[/math] (16 terms) and [math]ds^2=-c^2d\tau+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2[/math] with that you get [math]\eta_{\mu\nu}\mu^\mu\mu^nu=\mu^mu\mu_mu=-c^2[/math] the four velocity has constant length****** differentiating this gives (with [math]\dot{\mu}^\mu=\frac{d\mu^\mu}{d\tau})[/math] [math]\frac{d}{d\tau}(\mu^\mu \mu_mu)=0=2\dot{\mu}^\mu\mu_\mu[/math] defining acceleration four vector [math]a^\mu=\dot{\mu}^\mu[/math] [math]\eta_{\mu\nu}a^\mu\mu^\nu=0[/math] now consider a particle moving in constant acceleration g in the x^1 direction. The velocity and acceleration four vectors becomes [math]c\frac{dt}{d\tau}=\mu^0, \frac{dx^1}{d\tau}=\mu^1,\frac{d\mu_0}{d\tau}=a^0,\frac{d\mu^1}{d\tau}=a^1[/math] in addition [math] a^\mu a_\mu=-(a^0)^2+(a^1)^2=g^2[/math] which defines constant acceleration g. [math]a^0=\frac{g}{c}\mu^1,a^0=\frac{g}{c}\mu^0[/math] from which [math]\frac{da^0}{d\tau}=\frac{g}{c}\frac{d\mu^1}{d\tau}=\frac{g}{c}a^1=\frac{g^2}{c^2}\mu^0[/math] hence [math]\frac{d^2\mu^0}{d\tau^2}=\frac{g^2}{c^2}\mu^0[/math] and [math]\frac{d^2\mu^1}{d\tau^2}=\frac{g^2}{c^2}\mu^1[/math] becomes for last [math]\mu^1=A^1e^g{\tau/c}+Be^{-g\tau/c}[/math] [math]u^1=dx/d\tau=csinh(g\tau/c)[/math] [math]a^0=d\mu^0/d\tau=gsinh(g\tau/c)[/math] [math]\mu^0=c\frac{dt}{d\tau}=cosh(g\tau/c)[/math] [math] x=\frac{c^2}{g}cosh(g\tau/c),,,,ct=\frac{c^2}{g}(sinhg\tau/c)[/math] the space and time coordinates then fall on [math] x^2-c^2t^2=\frac{c^4}{g^2}[/math] There is your rapidity curve for the turnaround acceleration...you can also see that during turnaround the transformations differ from the typical Lorentz transforms under constant velocity Excerpt from Lewis Ryder "Introduction to General Relativity" for further details
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.