Butch

9 minutes ago, joigus said:

No, spin in the direction of motion more like. Although not exactly. There is a property of an elementary particle called helicity. It is the (normalised) projection of spin in the direction of momentum.

 

λ=S⋅p|S⋅p|

 

When studying massive spin-1/2 particles, one introduces another similar quantity that has to do with handedness. It's called chirality, and only in the limit of v-->c (approaching the speed of light) both observables coincide. Chirality is a bit more subtle. It has to do with handedness (whether you have a given 'right' version of the particle or its mirror image). It's made up of so-called gamma matrices from the Dirac equation.

Thank you. Have you investigated my model with regards to the area inside the "ab" pair? It is rather interesting.

I wish I knew of a good 3d gravitational modeling app, so I could study my entities in relative motion.

Nvrmnd... up and down spin is what you are referring to?

22 minutes ago, joigus said:

Yeah. Sorry. Right. Here's the correct statement: Only left handed electrons couple to the weak force. Same happens to quarks. So left and right handed electrons (and quarks) are treated as different particles in the standard model. It's neutrinos that exist only in left-handed version. I think I got it right now.

Thank you, Swansont.

Some info please? Left and right handed description... what is the perpendicular axis?

4 hours ago, joigus said:

Deviations from Kepler's laws for Mercury are due to 1r3 terms. Gravity is very different from Coulomb's law at strong fields.

The right statement would be: gravity with general relativity, locally, is no force at all.

Thank you for clarifying... another curious thing about the pair "ab":

Within the system "ab" time and gravity have an interesting relationship... such that no matter the eccentricity of the orbits to an outside observer, the shape of the orbits to an inside observer would be perfectly circular.

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

You mean neutrinos, right? (They were thought to be, but AFAIK the fact that they have mass means this isn’t exclusive.)

https://neutrinos.fnal.gov/mysteries/handedness/

neutrinos turn out to be an anomaly. Other particles such as the quarks and the other three leptons (the electron, muon, and tau) have both left-handed and right-handed versions of both the matter particle and their antimatter partner.

I have no idea what you mean by this. In your model they are points rotating. Nothing inherently gravitational. No interaction is described.

 

My points are point sources of gravitation, they are individually massless, however in a universe of them they appear massive because of the tensor field that binds them in a cosmic gel, whose density is dependant upon the field strength of the combination of tensors. (Feel free to clarify my language in accepted terms, I apologise for my lack of diction.)

1 minute ago, joigus said:

Gravity is an inverse-square law only in the weak-field approximation.

Gravity diminishes with distance, without relativity it is exactly nothing.

7 hours ago, joigus said:

Again, I applaud your enthusiasm. But science is tightly constrained by observation. It's not just about opening your mind's eye. It's about doing that while keeping an eye on observational data.

Here's a list of features you haven't contemplated (not meant to be complete):

We know all massive particles to be chiral (they have handedness). All electrons in the universe are left handed. Composite particles are coupled by chromodynamic forces and decay by electroweak forces. Hadrons, e.g., (strongly interacting particles) cannot split apart into quarks, but by forming other hadrons. But they're free at short distances! This is due to forces that look nothing like gravity.

On the other hand, your model doesn't even capture many of the properties of gravity that we know already, like gravitational lensing, or deviation from Newton's law at strong fields ('violation' of Newtonian centrifugal barriers), or black holes. All the features coming from GR.

You are on the precipice of understanding my model... my entities are single points of gravitational force and nothing else, however they must be relative to exist. Taken alone a simple plot of the inverse square demonstrates that at any distance g falls to zero, however relative to another such entity at any distance g never falls to zero.

Forget about the photon thing for a moment and consider "a" alone and then in relation to "b".

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

Gravity is not a force (at least not on an equal status with the other forces):

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33875/gravitation-is-not-force

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-illusion-of-gravity-2007-04/

Gravity is dimensionally exceptional, which makes it unwieldy to quantisation. Gravity is entropic. Gravity can be coded into the geometric properties of space time so that it locally 'disappears'. I don't think it's the most primal of forces. It's a very different animal.

I agree that it is a very different animal, however consider this... If you wanted to find the most primal constituent entity of our universe, that which lies at the very cusp of existence... what properties might it have.

2 hours ago, joigus said:

I'm not sure your model explains Newtonian gravity either. You haven't told us much about it.

It was never meant to "explain" gravity, explaining gravity would be akin to explaining the speed of light, light speed might however be explained at some point by investigation of more complex models evolved from this one. Gravity however is in my opinion the most primal of forces and we will have to accept that it just is. This model was created as a result of my thoughts on what the most primal constituent of our universe might be, a view from one end of the micro/macro rather than someplace in between. The current scientific methods of observation, give us good solid evidence of what our universe is, but what is to be done when our tools to observe are exhausted? The Higgs is not the most primal constituent, it has multiple properties, it has multiple states... it has then underlying structure. We could build an accelerator the size of the galaxy(of course none of us would live long enough to execute a single event) and still not find the evidence we can propose with our minds eye. Is this a valid avenue of exploration? Einstein used it very successfuly.

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Unfortunately semiconductors ( like the simple MosTek 6502 you used in 1982 ) cannot rewire their internal connections.
They don't have the 'complexity' ( even now, with billions of transistors ) that human brains have, and which can 'rewire' themselves to think differently. The human brain can even form new neuron pathways to regain function after damage has occurred to a particular part of the brain.
Computers may 'learn' to react to different situations but they are constrained by the electronic pathways to always 'think' in the same manner. One surface mount resistor with a cold solder joint, and your computer doesn't work; you can bash a football ( American ) player's, or boxer's, brain to the point of concussion, many times over, doing a lot of damage to their brains, and we would still consider them thinking, self-aware, individuals.

If we can develop organic, massively paralle semiconductors, that can re-wire ( and evolve ) the substrate, we may be able to create real AI, or artificial life.

 

And the only example of Global Supply Chain software I'm familiar with is SAP.
The most unwieldly, non-intuitive bunch of code I've ever seen.
An example of stupidity, not intelligence.

Digital systems for some time have had the ability to map out bad memory, also we are talking about a very dynamic system whose abilities increase constantly and geometrically. That it cannot control its own development yet does not preclude self awarness. Software can and does modify itself.

24 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

As of when? I would sincerely like to know. In my youth when I hung out with Catholics, I don't recall them being taught this doctrine. Certainly, it's not been their a historical stance.

I would also like to know what steps the Church as an organization has taken to bring about universal health care, save rain forests or mitigate income disparity. If it does, it could be quite effective, even in influencing governments.

When I was a youngster, mass was in Latin and the nuns at school, beat the crap out of students.  But again, the topic is not religion!

4 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Please stop doing this; it is irrelevant. Topics for discussion here need to be posted here. Posts that suggest people should go visit your blog are expressly forbidden in the rules.

 

Understood.

3 hours ago, joigus said:

LOL. Cm'on. No Inca monkey gods there. It's the standard model Lagrangian. And OP said he wanted his model to be the starting point to explain all of physics, including the standard model. Nature is messier than we sometimes want to believe.

What I want is to investigate the model to see if it will mesh with the standard model, the purpose being as stated in the very first part of my blog:

Science particularly physics, has sought to understand our universe via the micro and macro from our station within it. 

 The "observable" universe has grown as we find tools with which to observe it, however no matter how sophisticated our tools, they are limited and will never successfully observe all that is the universe, that is with the exception of one tool... the mind. We can envision things with the mind that can never be observed otherwise, it was Albert Einsteins mind experiments that brought us "Special Relativity" and released the energy of the atom.

We are at the point of atom smashing to investigate Higgs... how much further can our tools take us? Going to extremes via the minds eye and building back to see if the spans meet, may be the only tools we have in the near future, thus at least at some point it is a valid tool for exploration.

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

I think religion came about from a deep instinct in humans to manage the land by trying to understand it in faltering steps and ill-conceived guesswork. But religion has a life of its own, and further evolves from that first drive into self-perpetuating structures that no longer have to do with their first raison d'être. Perhaps it played a role in the origins of civilization. But it no longer does.

Tell that to the Pope, or the Taliban.

Religion, so good at getting us off topic.

4 minutes ago, joigus said:

One I can think of is getting hold of a vast library of nucleic acids and proteins. Biology is also a resource. Also, vast reservoirs of methane in oceanic bottoms, molecular oxygen, which is rare in the universe. Or simply ground to settle. Tidal and volcanic energy that maybe they --but not us-- can wield. Who knows.

If you look back at the history of human exploration, the driving force was the acquisition of resources. Adding to knowledge for its own sake was kind of an afterthought.

Let us not forget escaping disease, corrupt governance and persecution.

Also, as on our planet, no place left to run.

I am in need of a gravitational modeling tool, one that allows the entry of position and velocity, also 3 dimensional... I had written one using directx, but no longer have ready access to those tools as I am on the water most of the time, so a phone app is most suitable. Any suggestions?

2 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

What resources could Earth have that would have them bypass every other celestial body between them and us? It would have to be something biological that this ultra advanced species can't otherwise synthesise. Some form of curiosity seems more likely than this to me (including the curiosity of a cat to a mouse).

The resource, they would be looking for is square footage... does not bode well for the natives.

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

I don't think civilization ever advances as a result of religious principles being applied. The iconic fantasy of an advanced civilization visiting us is very much a literary mechanism to evidence our own imperfections. But I don't think that any actual intelligent alien species that we may find some day will respond to any of our utopian dreams. Most likely --if that ever happens--, they will be looking for resources.

I must disagree, religion was(is?)  a way of controlling the masses, focusing the people on common goals, not only advancing civilization, but perhaps even making civilization a possibility.

20 hours ago, joigus said:

It's only fair. I'll leave you with a picture of the recipe of known physics (except gravitation). It's the short version:

Gravitation is the piece that's missing in there.

It is missing because it is a part of physics that we can detect and measure, its nature is understood... however it is not a relative entity when isolated. Let me clarify, EM is self relating, positive is relative to negative, north relative to South etc. 

Mass and gravity are not self relating, (I cover this in my blog). Why is the speed of light what it is? We can say it has to be something... but that is not exactly true, why couldn't it have instantaneous transmission. The answers lie in what we can never observe, with the exception of what we observe with the minds eye. For my hypothesis I traveled to the most primal spot the mind can conceive of, the very threshold of existence. Read my blog, perhaps rather than critiquing my hypothesis, critique my thoughts.  I do greatly appreciate such. I try not to agree or disagree with such critique, but rather I let it prod me on.

Check this, if a non interfering observer were to measure the orbital paths of "ab" from inside the system, what shape would the orbits take?

3 hours ago, Tema said:

It is hard to follow so complex dialogue.

 

What is t he endthesis of this problem?

 

And can from Carboneum conclude what is life? If not, what is the contrathesis and syllogism? And best theory answer?

My friend, this dialog is not very complicated at all.

As to the end thesis, the model simply shows that 2 interacting point sources of gravitation in a system of appropriate size could generate a gravitational wave at light frequencies.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

I think you're confusing torque with torsion. A two-body gravitationally-bound system has no torque, as the torque is the rate of change of angular momentum, and angular momentum is conserved in a gravitational problem --leaving aside tidal forces. Internal forces are collinear with distance between particles ==> no internal torque. There are no external torques either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

You are absolutely correct... fatigue is in charge now... time for rest.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Where does gravity show up in your model's equations?

"abc" are points of equal gravitation, the model is scalar until I can match systems to observed entities. If you have any ideas on direction, I would appreciate your input. My thinking at this point is that I need to relate this first model to another entity to "flesh out" the tensors and observe how frame shift affects the phase of "ab", EM might be evident there. I know the math to use, but do not have a great deal of practice with it(vector transforms) especially in regards to Desmos.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Where does gravity show up in your model's equations?

"abc" are points of equal gravitation, the model is scalar until I can match systems to observed entities. If you have any ideas on direction, I would appreciate your input. My thinking at this point is that I need to relate this first model to another entity to "flesh out" the tensors and observe how frame shift affects the phase of "ab", EM might be evident there. I know the math to use, but do not have a great deal of practice with it(vector transforms) especially in regards to Desmos.

All my model shows at this point is that if "ab" are other than 180 degrees out of phase a gravitational wave is felt by "c", if the entities are ultimately primal, the gravitational waves would be extremely high frequency, hence a photon might be a very high frequency gravitational wave.

2 hours ago, joigus said:

There is no torsion in 2D. You can only have 1 curvature, and no torsion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_of_a_curve

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenet–Serret_formulas

In 4D you have even more.

I can appreciate your statement after playing with my model... as it is, it has no torque, to demonstrate torque I will need to build a model in 3d. Hopefully I can find an app that has sliders as in desmos... Swan has asked for a written tensor, however to have any meaning it will have to be dynamic, I need to be able to manipulate the model to observe the effect on the torque also the effect on phase.

39 minutes ago, joigus said:

(My emphasis.) Taking up on this, your idea; dear @Butch; should be able to mesh with (at the very least):

1) Quantum mechanics

2) General relativity

as it's presented as a model for gravity at a more fundamental level than the one we have. None of these criteria seems to be met from what I've seen.

(My emphasis.)

It's the other way. The meshing point should be the starting point, which is at the core, I think, of Swansont's last statements here.

It's definitely not: Hey, this looks right in my mind; somehow some day it will click with everything else. What are the chances of getting it right this way?

It's the other way. And believe me I just want to be helpful. If you see someone starting out from an obvious mistake, you try to tell them.

My starting point is not arbitrary.

It is not a model of gravity, rather it is an application of gravity. I am not trying to redefine physics, I am just exploring from a different point of origin than our station in the universe.

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

You still need to know the physics you are trying to mesh with.

That is why I am so thankful for the help I receive on this forum. If you read my blog you will see that I clearly state that my hypothesis is an excursion of abstraction. 

The abstract mind opens doors, the math of physics brings understanding of what lies within... or closes the door.

17 minutes ago, joigus said:

Good luck with that:

There are 19 free parameters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#Construction_of_the_Standard_Model_Lagrangian

I applaud your optimism.

PS: None of those include gravity, by the way. Plus the standing problem of hierarchies. Sounds like you have no idea what you're up against, honest.

There's a (panoply of) reason(s) why revolutions in science are so hard to come by.

We are up against, really all my hypothesis is, reduces to a different starting point for exploration... If I am wrong I will very quickly reach a dead end. (Please do not jump to the conclusion that you know what that dead end is). If that happens... fine, I can rest... We can rest.

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

One being that if you change one part of physics, it affects so much elsewhere in physics. And all of it has to work. So if you are ignorant of those other parts, you will have no idea how many ways your idea is wrong.

Taking the blinders off means learning more (much more) of physics.

I am not looking to change physics, it is my hope that my hypothesis at some point finds a meshing point and we will have the micro end of physics solved. 

5 minutes ago, joigus said:

Good luck with that:

There are 19 free parameters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#Construction_of_the_Standard_Model_Lagrangian

I applaud your optimism.

Thanks, I know it is a huge task... my hope is that I will not be alone and the work will outlive me. You see, this hypothesis begins at the threshold of existence and the work extends to the limits of physics...

7 minutes ago, joigus said:

There is no torsion in 2D. You can only have 1 curvature, and no torsion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_of_a_curve

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenet–Serret_formulas

In 4D you have even more.

True, but I can create a mathematical model in 2d, curve stitching in 2d or a 3d charting app after that. I am excited that it should provide charge relatable to real world units, with that I can start to build the standard model via my "point sources of gravitation" (If I live that long).

The vector will change with "ab" that is the 3rd dimension.

I can be more succinct once I do some work on the model. Could be the coffee talking right now. Lol.

Wow, very interesting Swan! I am working on the torsion model, it occurs to me that with that, a transformation in frame is possible that results in a constant phase imbalance... EM! 

Thank you sir!

With a quantum charge unit the rest fall in place!

Gonna be a lot of work though...

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Can you write down the tensor for us?

 

I can include a torsion vector in my model relative to "i", it will of course be a scalar.

On 7/10/2021 at 9:49 PM, Butch said:

Okay, suppose the graviton is not a quanta, it has no spin, no wave function, no dimension etc. it is simply a point source of gravitation. If "a,b,c" represent gravitons and "i" is the tensor between the center of gravity of the pair "ab" and "c" then an oscillation in "i" must represent a photon. I deduce this because the scale of this system is among the smallest possible, thus the orbital period of "ab" would be very short, hence the frequency of the gravitational wave in the tensor would have a very high frequency. Once the phase difference of 180 degrees between "a" and "b" has been disturbed they would tend to return to a quiescent state of 180 degrees out of phase. The produced photon would have a wave nature and a particle nature since the wave medium is a spacial single dimension entity. Because "ab" return to a quiescent state the photon would be a packet. I could elaborate on the return to a quiescent state, but my hope is that it is obvious to you. What obviously is missing here is mass, however I do explain this in my blog. If you would like a link, pm me.

P.S.

The pair "ab" is a particle, it has dimension, spin, polarity etc.

Many other ideas are arising for me out of this first model, for example:

The pair "ab" demonstrates polarity, but what about charge? Could it be that a phase shift produces charge? There are so many ideas springing from this model, I hope some of you take an interest, I am just one old man.

While it is explained in my blog, I neglected to state it here... if the phase difference between "a" and "b" is 180 degrees, "i" does not change, however if the phase difference is other than 180 degrees "i" oscillates, please do not confuse "i" with a part of the system, it is simply a scalar value indicating the strength of the tensor "ab", "c". You can adjust the "P" slider to see the effect that a phase shift has on "i".

Also, I misrepresented "i" as a tensor, the tensor has no specific designator... The tensor is "ab", "c"...  "i" is the strength of the tensor. 

"i" also is not a photon, its oscillating value however indicates a wave in the tensor which is a photon.

I apologize.