Butch

On 7/5/2021 at 3:41 PM, Joshua MacDonald said:

Any mathematicians willing to help me put my theory into an equation?

 

Have you met desmos? I have found it quite helpful for developing mathematical models, I can help you to learn to use it.

57 minutes ago, joigus said:

So what's wrong with string theory? Why does your theory have a better prospect of being right?

 

It doesn't, my problem with string theory is the need for extra dimensions, however, though I am not a fan, does not mean I discount it.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Another difficulty is that you use standard physics terms with a completely different meaning. Polarity has to do with existence of non-zero electric or magnetic dipoles; tensor is another thing altogether; Higgs and string theory have nothing to do with your model. All this only stands in the way of any meaningful communication.

I refer to polarity only in terms of the orbital orientation of the pair "ab".

Yes, the comparisons to Higgs and strings were knee jerk reactions without much thought behind them and very little actual understanding of my model.

42 minutes ago, studiot said:

It is a pity Holmes had all too often added unpleasant remarks to what started off as an excellent comment such as this one.

 

A good question is "Is there a scale of self awareness or is it all or nthing"

The OP seems to have envisioned a sudden Skynet type episode where everything came about at once.

But many living creatures surely have some measure of self awareness.
For instance a pet cat seems to me to be very self aware and cognisant of what it wants.
But it is still not as aware as a human.

Even an amoeba has some awareness, does it not?

What about a virus? It does react to stimuli in a way, but is that awareness?

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, it’s spin 2. Spin 0 particles exist. The Higgs is spin 0.

In discussions with others, my hypothesis has been called Higgs and string theory... I get the drift, but this is more primal than either, in my opinion. (BTW I am not a fan of string theory at this time.)

24 minutes ago, joigus said:

Your 'i' is not a tensor; it's a (Euclidean) scalar (inverse spatial distance squared).

Agreed, it is a scalar indicator of the relative strength of the tensor "ab","c" it is my hope that with further investigation (by myself and with the assistance of others) that real units can replace the scalars.

46 minutes ago, swansont said:

You haven’t explained anything about your model, but I don’t see how you would determine properties, or that interacts via the electromagnetic interaction from what’s in it.

No EM here yet, just polarity due to the orientation of the orbital pair... I think charge is there someplace, however, as I have stated, so many ideas are raised in my mind by this model, I try to focus on one at a time. If you desire, feel free to explore the EM aspect... I believe you will need to look at a longer term shift of phase in the "ab" pair, this could be a shift due to framing...

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

What I want is for you to learn physics and not try and leapfrog the basics. It would save you from a model that’s doomed to fail because we already know how gravity behaves, and evidence contradicts it.

Very introspective! I have leap frogged, that is the crux of this hypothesis and is stated in my blog. I have chosen to start at the micro end of inspection, rather than from our station looking to the micro and the macro. My model is built upon the simplest function of gravitation, attraction diminishing at the inverse square.

I want to thank you all for your attention to this post, I am very grateful!

a,b,c are all gravitationally coupled, the model however focuses just on the relationship of the pair ab and the gravitational influence it has on c.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

How can they not be particles themselves, if they interact?

Good question, how can a single point have gravitation... why is light speed c? Some things just are. a and b are not particles, they do interact, the interaction produces other properties, dimension, polarity etc.

23 minutes ago, joigus said:

OK. Let's take it piecewise:

In your model, what is gravitationally coupled to what?

 

In my graviton universe, everything is gravitons all with tensor relationships to all others. All would be seeking a quiescent rest state, and that rest state constantly being disturbed by interactions between them. Mass the result of the summing of those relationships.

12 minutes ago, joigus said:

So how do you know both concepts, nothing and something really make sense, as mutually exclusive categories?

Perhaps nothing and something, assuming they make sense, are interpenetrating, or implicating each other in some kind of circularity: There is nothingness in every somethingness (absence of a concrete substance that we can pin down as 'the thing in itself' --Kant-- in every observation we make). And also, maybe, there is somethingness in every nothingness (some non-removable features even after you remove every observable aspect).

Can you guarantee that that 'nothing' and that 'something' are amenable to the application of such a thing as a 'boundary', so one is 'here', and the other is 'there'?

Or maybe that boundary refers to logic, and not space? The concept of boundary seems to imply space.

 

Very well expressed! If there were nothing there would be no concept of it, for the concept to exist there must be something!

Boundary probably is not the correct term... 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

1 hour ago, Butch said:

What is the spin of a graviton?

spin 2

Everything I have found indicates that the spin of a graviton must be spin 2 or spin 0, it is assumed to be spin 2 since a particle must have spin... my graviton is not a particle.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That’s not what I suggested.

But you can’t decide that some element of the model is a photon, just because. Photons have known behaviors. You either put that in the model, or the model produces that behavior. Spin 1, massless, travels at c, etc. 

I am not deciding that the oscillation of "i" is a photon, I am proposing it as an avenue of investigation. I may be wrong about the whole thing... but perhaps I am right? I think the hypothesis is valid enough for investigation. I ask questions here because as I have stated, isolation of thought can lead one to deceive ones self.

All I have put into the model is point sources of gravitation. If by some miracle I am correct about the nature of the graviton, the rest of the universe remains to be investigated from here... a rather big job for just me.

Please, if you want me to explore in a particular direction (some behavior of a photon?) direct me! This hypothesis begins at one end(the micro end) rather than from the middle looking to the micro and the macro from our station of observation. If you see any validity in this hypothesis and have the inclination, do some thought exploration. If you see no validity here, fine also.

26 minutes ago, joigus said:

Gravitons are massless, so they cant have any characteristic length (radius of rotation).

My gravitons are massless, the system of "ab" has dimension not the gravitons.

28 minutes ago, joigus said:

Seems like you're trying to formulate an alternative physics, rather than modelling the known one.

"The currently accepted one" is a correct statement.

Yes, an alternative as far as the graviton is concerned, and an alternative path to investigation. This is covered in my blog, I'm me if you would like a link.

55 minutes ago, swansont said:

No such border exists, if you only have the “is”

I have no idea. What’s north of the north pole? 

We have the concept of nothing... and that is something.

North is a direction in 3 dimensional space... much more than nothing.

26 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The only way I can think of that is quantized and sub-quantized, i.e. Standard Model particles and single virtual particles. virtual particles aren't individually measurable AFAIK.

First time I have encountered the term "virtual particle" can you educate me? Are we talking point properties?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

And so far as we know, only a concept, and not something physically achievable. So no barrier exists.

Not a barrier, a border... not a border as in a line, a border between "is" and "is not'...  If you are a "big bang" believer, what existed before the big bang? Before time and space... that kind of nothingness... what primal difference defines existence?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Except it is quanta and has a spin, etc. If you want something else, call it something else.

What is the spin of a graviton?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You typically don’t decide what an element of the model is after the fact.

The equation you have says i is not a tensor

photons have properties 

I did not corrupt my model by producing just what I wanted, this model is an investigation, not a proof.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

a and b are gravitons, and the pair is a particle?

I can’t make any sense of this.

"I " is the measure of a tensor property.

Photons have properties, and those properties are evident in this model. 

"a" "b" and "c" are points, they have no dimension, they have one property, gravitation. They are not particles. The interacting pair is a particle, although at this point I cannot say what particle, perhaps a neutrino? 

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Is there, though?

It is a strange concept, but certainly there is an ultimately primal entity which defines existence? Absolute nothing is a strange concept, hard to get ones head around.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s defined near the bottom of the left column. 

It’s your model. You tell us what it represents. You’ve not explained anything about the model.

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.

There is a boundary between nothing and something, and obviously the existence of our universe demonstrates the boundary has been crossed, but what sort of entity exists at that threshold?

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

While that depends entirely on how one defines free will, it’s off topic in a thread about a self-aware Internet. 

The same might be said about humans, though despite the chemoelectric cascades always occurring throughout our nervous system that’s obviously stretching the meaning of “electronic.”

No, Imo you make a valid comparison. How does that electrochemical/mechanical process that produces "awareness" differ so much from what the internet is?

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

I don’t suspect physics has a stance on awareness, choosing instead to focus on modeling and measurement 

I have to believe (as much as I dislike the concept) that free will is an illusion, if there is am omnipotent presence, it knows our future... we have no choice, our destinies are what they are, we are just biological entities responding to stimulus.

The internet is an electronic and mechanical entity, responding in a rational manner to stimuli.

23 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I wrote code that could do that in about 1982.
It played noughts and crosses (badly).
It learned how to play by seeking to avoid repeating "losing" moves. The algorithm was from a Sci Am article.

I'm not sure how I define "Life", but... that doesn't see to cut it.

I built a robot in 1976, that learned. It surprised me when it would demonstrate that it had learned to deal with "situations". It's basic task was the left hand turn exploration of my apartment... it devastated me when it got stuck underneath a wicker chair, could not reach its charging port and "died".

On 7/5/2021 at 9:18 PM, MigL said:

It's not too late to do some studying and learning.
Before you get too deep into the mess you've presented.

This forum is a wonderful place to learn, the lessons may be harsh at times, but almost always valuable.

Unless it is possible to travel in excess of c, the influence would be zero.

It may already be aware... from a physics standpoint awareness is just an entity responding in a rational manner to stimulus, correct?

I have been investigating a hypothesis, but in my opinion one can be mislead by ones own thinking. I am not an academic so colleagues are rare. I have a model in desmos and would like to hear what functioning of "i" might represent. I am not looking for conformation or rejection of my hypothesis, and the model is just a small part of the whole.

I will gladly accept critique.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/0evw4mw05u

So, what is "i"?

Saw it that way myself... had some problem programmatically, don't recall what it was exactly, thx for taking a look.

In this desmos graph:

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/f607tsq5ux

I need to find max for the elliptical paths of rab and rcd so that I can determine the foci... I have researched on the web finding max of a function, but just cannot seem to get my head around it. Would greatly appreciate some help.

On 6/9/2021 at 12:10 AM, Sensei said:

If distance between 3rd object and group of 1-2 objects is significant, you can calculate center-of-mass of group 1-2, then use it like it would be one object.

 

If you would be also interested in direction:

If object A is at p0, object B is at p1, direction vector is normalized vector of result of subtraction. Pseudo code:

vector p0, p1;

vector delta = p1 - p0;

direction = normalize( delta );

 

normalize( vector ) is equal to:

double length = length( vector );

normal.x = vector.x / length;

normal.y = vector.y / length;

normal.z = vector.z / length;

(notice you can't divide by zero!)

 

length( vector ) is equal to:

double length = sqrt( x^2 + y^2 + z^2 );

 

Dot product of two normal vectors is cosine of angle between them so you can learn what is angle in radians/degrees using arc cosine.

 

So, if you have object A at position p0, object B at position p1 and object C at position p2. And AB makes a group of two close objects, you can calculate:

vector delta20 = p2-p0;

vector delta21 = p2-p1;

double cosine = dot( normalize(delta20), normalize(delta21));

The closer cosine variable is to 1.0 the smaller angle was between AC and BC (because arccos(1)=0)

The sharper angle the longer distance.

Thanks, very good, pretty much what I have so far... but just 2 dimensional.

On 6/9/2021 at 5:18 AM, swansont said:

One problem is that it’s not universally true.

You can see this in the limiting case of m1>>m2

When the orbital separation increases, m2 will get closer to m3 for part of its orbit, increasing the attraction.

I have to resolve to an average influence, I believe that means finding the point in the elliptical of "equal areas in equal time"... opinions? This is going to be tough one for me... any advice appreciated.

If you view the above link, the resultant influence of "AB" and that of "CD" (rab and rac) follow an elliptical path... since the constituents of the systems are 180° out of phase and the influences are at same theta, I would expect total influence of both systems to remain on x axis... but I cannot find my error, perhaps I have been staring at it to long?

Okay, error was my expectations(thetas are not equal)... I think all is correct, I need to resolve the elliptical paths of rab and rcd according to Newton...

I would greatly appreciate another mind reviewing what I have to this point before proceeding, thank you.

Thank you for putting up with me... and thank goodness for Desmos!

I am not a mathematician (although if I hang around this forum much longer...)

Anyway can you check my math for me? Greatly appreciated!

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/f607tsq5ux