Jump to content
Joduh

Blob Theory

Recommended Posts

Gravity emerges as the thermodynamic equation of state.  "Q" is pressure-like compressing toward each 'Singularity'.  Geometry starts at each 'Singularity' in the sense that a Q has no geometry until it is effected by each 'Singlularity'.   Blob happens before GR, and then GR emerges as what happens when you crush Q in certain spots, while Q presses around.  We just don't need the abstract notion of geometry chosen at random.  At least we don't need it for Blob Theory. 

May I ask, who put all the scaffolding in place that allows you to measure?  GR?  it's abstract not real. 

Which leads back to one of  Smolin's precepts re: realists v. operationalists.  You must have a rational basis for your choice in where to start your interactions.  Where does GR start?  put your finger on it please.  push the button if there is one.  I submit there is no GR starting point unless you simply define it that way.  and if you define it that way, why not another way.  or another way on the other side of the universe, not here.   So GR is a non-starter, kinda.
 

 

37 minutes ago, Mordred said:

need to match current observation that is supported by math

QED math seems pretty good from an observational standpoint.  Modified Pilot Wave Theory math may prove to be more simple.  Both maths would apply to the Q portion of Blob Theory.  Both maths happen after the basic interactions of Blob Theory, and need only be modified to the extent that Blob predicts things like entanglement, dark matter, galactic structure, lightning...

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

No physics model works without a mathematical model of its kinematics.

Mordred is astute here in the sense that kinematics is key. The difficulty for Blob is that Q is continuous rather than discrete as quanta. I think. (that means an educated guess that should be discussed) The quanta don't emerge until after the SCM events.

If we imagine for a moment the event that is SCM, it presents as a “freezing” of Blob's Q at a 'Singularity' locale (S), with associated gradient of less-frozen Q surrounding radially (radial for simplicity) and very large in magnitude further away. This gradient provides the structure for micro-scale dynamos and torrents (more on those later).

Imagine the closest packing of spinning spheres model of 3d space. The parts between the spheres is distinct from the spheres and represents where they grind together. So as these degrees of freeze establish around S, there will be a complex transfer of stuff around, between, on top of... There will be stable spin states that emerge from the complexity, the most probable ones. This is the basic kinematics of Blob. This is where the super computer would be helpful. To approximate what can be described as weather at 10-15.

image.png.feff7e4e7f6e9bb4af0625a5aef71347.png

Edited by Joduh
fixed Smolin precept names

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joduh said:

Kids in school see white light falling on a prism, and then colored light coming out. Then the teacher tells them that light must be both particle and wave, without any proof. It can be convincing despite the lack of logic because there doesn't seem to be a better explanation.

Instead, white light is the input, and the colors are the output of matter reacting to light. They are not particles except to the extent they are absorbed by matter, and even then, they are not the matter itself. The light is not “being split,” it is different light that is emitted as vectors.

If the teacher said that, wave-particle duality cross-thinking goes away. Kids have a more simple view. And maybe won't start drooling at the sight of differential equations.

Teachers at primary school during showing splitting of white light to rainbow certainly don't tell kids about particle-wave duality. It is too early stage of education of kids (at least from point of view of current teachers).

Full visible spectrum photons have different wavelengths/frequencies/energies with wavelengths between 400 nm to 700 nm. Photons with different properties hitting at prism surface, react slightly differently, their paths are bend at different directions, therefor separation of mixture of photons (white light) to rainbow (each wavelength goes independently from the rest). There is no need to mention particle-wave duality.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Photons with different properties hitting at prism surface

Seems like "photons" ARE wave-particles.  The teachers prolly rn't splainin more cause they don't know either.  This would seem to be the conventional view of light though, nice quote.  I'm still not sure (even after all those teachers) what "hitting at prism surface" means.  the molecules of the prism?  which one?  aren't they  in different shapes and stuff when they perfectly reproduce the spectrum?  Why don't surface imperfections make imperfect rainbows?  Perfect crystals?  Surfaces of crystals?  how do they "hit" without particle properties?  How are they "bent" by the prism?  Is that like bending straws?  Why does light go straight except then?  how about the little elastic gluons, are they involved?  And why, if light is photons, and the density is whatever at the source, it should be a lot less light years away, yet it seems like there is no empty space between photons -- that can only be waves.  No, you can't use photons as explanation without it being inherently about wave particle duality.  And that is confusing, not a good theory.  Not saying it to the kids is part of the problem.

Im talkin to a machine here aren't i

Edited by Joduh
folly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...the key fact, that you miss is that you do not need while light source to confirm with what angle specific color light will bend its path..

Imagine: there is prism, and there are red, green and blue lasers, which you can turn on/off on demand. You turn them on, one by one, not at once, and you see where they hit at final screen..

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scuze me while I git dees bullets outta ma particles, shoulda realized.  All that math looks like it was copped off some website eh?  Which did you get it from?  Easier just to quote "QED" like I do?  Seemss like a really complicated description of somewhere on the other side of something somewhere lost is space.  Or maaybe that 's what SCM does.  So competings be damned!  they'll just have to fall in line behind Blob.

15 minutes ago, Sensei said:

You turn them on, one by one, not at once, and you see where they hit at final screen..

I tried that once but I must have inhaled or something

I think it was college

Edited by Joduh
real

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Joduh said:

scuze me while I git dees bullets outta ma particles, shoulda realized.  All that math looks like it was copped off some website eh?  Which did you get it from?  

 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 ?

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good good! Expertise.  I'm only 62, but i'm over it.  My degrees are not in physics so all I can do is reference the work, and well, try to fit Blob in as the missing foundation.  You know I was thinking, this idea of singularities seems newer than the vintage of the Maxwell/Dirak/etc. thinkers.  How would they have made that math?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My answer is explained above and is zero.  that is 0.  as in 0.0  'Singularities' in Blob don't do anything either.  How could they?  If they did it would be more complicated than simple.  Singlularities in GR are theoretical and I suppose  could have all sorts of conditions attached to them.  Hopefully convenient ones since otherwise they are floating away somewhere.  And in a way, that is what SCM are -- weather conditions around 'Singularities' that are localized right here, right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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]

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carlo Rovelli http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/ has been working on Loop Quantum Gravity and he has really interesting math.  In one of his lectures he works the  math all the way down to 10-33, when an audience question about what happens below that promts his answer that: "it could be anything... it could be a black hole."  Makes me wonder.

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Zero is rather meaningless by itself.

Seems like rather a waste of that which is really the kernal of everything.  Just let it go to waste just like that?  Someone must have missed something.

Edited by Joduh
waste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

we cannot describe

it is the exclusion zone in Blob

Edited by Joduh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Joduh said:

Perhaps we could just assume it is true?

It is true that you are not doing anything like science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Then if it's the exclusive zone then Blob would not be a non reactive singularity.

The exclusion zone is a Q phenomena in Blob, not the S.  It is not the 'Singularities' that make the exclusion zone, the zones are in the Q.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Joduh said:

what do the unicorns do?

They do exactly what your singularities do, of course. They have exactly the same mathematical description (ie none). And they have exactly the same level of existence and credibility.

Singularities are not "things". They are places where the mathematics of a model no longer works; typically because values become infinite. So, what mathematical value becomes infinite at your singularities? Curvature? Density? Mass?

8 hours ago, Joduh said:

the problem with math is it has no locality, no starting point, other than arbitrary ones. things just don't add up unless you start somewhere.  You can calculate the  cannonball trajectory, but you have no cannon to fire it from.   I don't think math works as a theory of the universe.

The problem with making up fairy tales, as you are doing (even if they have a few sciency words in there) is that there is no way of testing the ideas to see if they are correct or not. That is why mathematics is required if you are to do science.

 

 

4 hours ago, Joduh said:

start with what?  "a geometry"?  where is it? 

 

Just because you are ignorant of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Measure the dimensions of your room (height, width, length). That is geometry. You could start from there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Joduh said:

The exclusion zone is a Q phenomena in Blob, not the S.  It is not the 'Singularities' that make the exclusion zone, the zones are in the Q.

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.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Q is defined above and is pulled from modified Pilot Wave Theory.  Q is the pressure term which in Blob parlance is 'Change'.  The S is short for the infinite non-array of 'Singularities' in Blob.  But I haven't gotten to the exclusion zone part of the Theory and it is getting late.  Blob Theory predicts, for example, that the solar system should have an exclusion zone around it -- that is how is separation is achieved from infinite Q . 

If we send a spacecraft to the edges of the solar system, we should see variations in the magnetic field that isolate ions on either side of a very wide zone which would be pierced by periodic bolts of invasive Q.  Outside this exclusion zone would be the galactic Q.  And outside the galactic would be the Q of intergalactic.

The other thing to test would be the micro dynamos in Blob that project the 'Change' Q structure as lines of force radiating to remote regions of SCM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The finite portions are localized at the 'Singularities'.  The "cutoff" if I understand the meaning, would be an inherent function of Q as it stands off S.   One interpretation of this is that the size of an electron is a function of the stand off zone; put an S down, surround and spin up with Q and that's how big the wave function (or the weather around S) is.

Entropy results from the instabilities of SCM pressure structures.

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

They do exactly what your singularities do, of course

Then they exactly are 'Singularities' and calling them unicorns is specious word play.  Should we start a new thread for Unicorn Theory for you?  I kinda like the imagery...  Maidens and their horses horning the sky

 

33 minutes ago, Strange said:

Just because you are ignorant of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So true.  but I don't remember my geometry teacher postulating ignorance as math.  I put the book down on the table though, reached my hand in and let the geometry trickle through my fingers.  Ahh, it's stuff not theory.  But why would I need a tape measure?  Couldn't we just say it's yea big this and that way?  Isn't the tape measure itself the real thing and not the geometry?  I know I gotta believe to make this one work.  I think I can I think I can I think I can.  I propose a test, if this forum is really just an app placing random phrases that seem to fit it's appreciation then it can't sound one hand clap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joduh said:

it is the exclusion zone in Blob

You are making all this stuff when you are writing on forum...

You don't understand how science works. There is observation of phenomenon and attempt to make equation which will allow interpolation and/or extrapolation of gathered data samples. You have been asked numerous times to come up with math equations to be able to verify your hypothesis. Such verification is done by scientists by feeding equation with data. Do you know what interpolation and extrapolation means? Prediction of behaviour of physical system.

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.