KALSTER

I was reading through the wiki article on Superfluidity and came across this gob-smacking passage: "A more fundamental property than the disappearance of viscosity becomes visible if superfluid is placed in a rotating container. Instead of rotating uniformly with the container, the rotating state consists of quantized vortices. That is, when the container is rotated at speed below the first critical velocity (related to the quantum numbers for the element in question) the liquid remains perfectly stationary. Once the first critical velocity is reached, the superfluid will very quickly begin spinning at the critical speed. The speed is quantized - i.e. it can only spin at certain speeds." This is exactly the type of stuff I was thinking and wondering about! Could the medium I am considering produce such vortices? Can vortices have a fractal nature, even if only stochastically? Could an oscillating source create the kind of vortices I am looking for? Is there some kind of simulation engine where I can feed it variables and see what happens anywhere available?

Ok. Maybe not everything. If you keep on cutting something into pieces you'll eventually end up with fundamental particles, which, as far as we know is not devisable. Someone on another forum directed me towards the fact that this premise of mine has the essence of Zeno's_paradoxes at heart. As a purely mathematical/philosophical consideration it certainly does hold water. The invention of Calculus has provided a means to circumvent the paradox, but it has not gone away fully. The hypothetical particle system I am investigating here does not need any kind of proof for it to be logically consistent.

I was provided with a link to Einsteins View on the compatibility of an aether with relativity on another site. It has made me think a bit further on the nature of the proposed aether. Einstein says that for the aether to be consistent with Relativity it can not be thought of as existing of individual particles in relation to which motion can be measured. But then how can it have the needed properties for electromagnetic radiation and gravity to exist? Logic dictates that everything is infinitely devisable, for when you choose to stop dividing after any number of divisions you could still in principle divide to yet another level. So if you take it to the limit (pun intended) mathematically, you will be left with a particle with dimensions that tend toward zero. The seperation between these particles would also tend towards zero, but slight variations in these seperations would allow for any kind of 3D dynamics on the makro scale. The question is: How would the fluid dynamics of these particles (strings maybe :?: ) be affected when the particles and seperations are on a sub Planck length scale?

From the Wiki page on Fractals: "Approximate fractals are easily found in nature. These objects display self-similar structure over an extended, but finite, scale range. Examples include clouds, snow flakes, crystals, mountain ranges, lightning, river networks, cauliflower or broccoli, and systems of blood vessels and pulmonary vessels. Coastlines may be loosely considered fractal in nature." The images in the OP was only to get a casual reader an idea of what a fractal is. I was thinking of fractals in the form of self-similar reducing eddies in a medium, that is, reducing as the energy is dissipated with distance by forming multitudes of smaller and similar eddies (if that makes sense). This hypothetical medium would have no internal friction as one would expect from water, say. By oscillating I mean that they form mirror images of each other along an axis running through the source, roughly in the same manner a sine-wave would. So assuming that nature can not be infinitely reduced (the space-time fabic for instance), I guess this fractal would have to terminate after a certain number of instances. Maybe even straight down to the planck length. For simplification, think of a wave-form being emitted around an axis of symmetry, similar to a sine wave, but instead of the regular positive and negative curves, you have (alternating between each side of the axis) spirals/eddies curling in the direction of the disturbance. This single arm comes into contact with the arm of another disturbance. The direction of rotation of the spirals/eddies will clash head-on with the spirals/eddies of the other arm. Now extrapolate this to a 3D situation with large numbers of arms from the two disturbances interacting with each other. The disturbances should be attracted to each other, no? Just to be clear: I am not making any claims, just doing a mind experiment. Any takers?

no takers?

I was wondering how the effect changes in strength as you move through the atmospheer and onto the surface? You see, I always thought that the measured effect would lessen as you come closer to the surface, because you would be entering the inertial frame of the earth. But then if that were the case, that would mean that the frame of the earth is isolated from the surrounding space to some degree, no?

To quote Wiki: Different forms of: Ok, so my question is whether this effect occurs on a planetary surface as well? What about underground? There is a Gravity Probe experiment underway which involves the launching of satellites into orbit in order to measure the tiny effect with the use of gyroscopes, but this will only measure the effect in near space and not on the surface or underground.

First, a quote from the Wiki page on Fractals: A fractal is generally "a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole," a property called self-similarity. The term was coined by Benoît Mandelbrot in 1975 and was derived from the Latin fractus meaning "broken" or "fractured." A fractal often has the following features: It has a fine structure at arbitrarily small scales. It is too irregular to be easily described in traditional Euclidean geometric language. It is self-similar (at least approximately or stochastically). It has a Hausdorff dimension which is greater than its topological dimension (although this requirement is not met by space-filling curves such as the Hilbert curve). It has a simple and recursive definition. And an example: The Mandelbrot set is a famous example of a fractal. A closer view of the Mandelbrot set. Now, imagine a 3D version of a fractal created by an oscillating disturbance at its centre. The oscillation means that the orientation of the fractal (into its mirror image) changes with a certain frequency and that the speed at which the newly created fractal moves away from its source is governed by the medium of propegation it finds itself in. The shape, size and type of the fractal is determined by the particular shape, size and type of the disturbance. It is possible for the shape of two fractals to be equal in every way except for the orientation being in the opposite direction (i.e. it points outward instead of inward). My question is: Is it possible for the interaction between these two fractals, equal except for orientation, to exert an attractive force on each other? Would two of the exact same fractals then exert a repulsive force on each other?

Been a while;) If anyone at all is interested, I have been considering two new possible aspects. The first is the origin of resistance to acceleration (inertia) and the ability for a particle to sustain relative movement without any losses (in the absence of external forces). I was thinking that maybe the space-time fabric has a perfect elasticity property to it. Inside a particle the space-time fabric would be stretched, so if the particle were to move, it would need to stretch in the front and release space-time in the back as it moves. When no frictional loss is present the particle would be able to keep on moving as the amount of space stretched per unit time equals the amount of space released per unit time. But when acceleration occurs, the amount of space stretched is always more than the amount being released so a net resistance is resultant. This resistance would increase with the level of acceleration achieved as the gradient between the rate of stretch and release becomes more pronounced. This ties up with observation. The second has to do with the initial premise that particles are basically the result of a "pinch-and-twist" effect of the space-time fabric. The difference is that someone suggested that a consequence of the proposed perfect elasticity of the space-time fabric is that when the "pinch-and-twist" is completed, the geometric distortion would not stay stationary, but would uncoil and recoil in the opposite direction: a sort of pendulum effect. This would tie up nicely with some current theories where vibrational modes are required. Comments please?

Einstein said that force is also subject to the speed of light. I think he used the sun-earth system as an example, where if you suddenly removed the sun, that the earth would go around its orbit for another eight minutes before leaving it. Does that not directly suggest a geometric aspect, in full or part, to light (photons)? I mean that when the distortion of space (gravity of the sun) is removed, that the geometric "wave" of change happens to travel at the speed of light precisely because of the propagating properties of space-time? The very same propagating properties that I am suggesting being responsible for the speed of light? Of course, it would imply/require the non-existence of the proposed graviton, and that gravity is purely geometric. Some more Q&A on another site: Basically, some of these observed phenomenon would have to be taken as a given for now, as the "hypothesis" is much to superficial at the moment to deal with any in-depth questions. An in-depth (mathematical) investigation would come after it starts to look like being worth-while. Not there yet (if ever)

Ok, you can stop the deep breaths now.....

I have been having a hard time getting someone on another forum to understand my thinking on this (mostly because of bad analogies on my part). I hope I can do a better job here. With particles being complex wave-bundles in the space-time fabric, they are free to move around similarly to the sine-wave in the steel cable analogy of the OP. So, given that, they could both unfold and still stay clumped together. An analogy to this (here goes) is: Imagine you put your finger on the table and let a piece of string lie over it. The sine-wave shape the string makes over your finger represents the particle. Now take the string at one end and pull. This represents the total unfolded space released from the particle in question and the surrounding matter moving in essence through the particle. As the string moves, the wave-form still stays in the same place over your finger (in practice this would be as a result of gravity). I hope that made sense? Ok. A proton is thought to have a half-life of around 10^36 years. It decays into a positron and a neutral pion. The neutral pion then almost immediately decays into two Gamma photons. Now if you take hydrogen atom: 1 proton + I electron -> 1 electron + 1 positron + 2photons, and then the electron and positron can annihilate to photons. I know this only represent a small fraction of known particles. The thing is I was thinking that since entropy increases, that eventually only photons would be left. I was frustratingly unable to find a list of particles with their half-lives and products after decay! The way I was thinking is that the universe can be seen as a huge unwinding clock. The unwinding idea is fortuitously directly analogous to the uncurling of particles. The only possible reference I could find, was the proposed final state of the universe, represented as a photon universe in the region of 10^100 years. Given that, it would be natural to assume that after all the elementary particles have decayed; only photons would be left. Perhaps I should be talking about elementary particles decaying to photons after sufficient time, instead of composite particles in general, to limit confusion. So lets say from now on that elementary particles would be represented by “EP”. One thing my model seems to suggest, is that the half-lives of EP that are in relative proximity to each other, would be affected for better or worse in this way: The final annihilation event of an EP would be when the particle unfolds to a point where it hits a slippery slope and uncurls quickly into a burst of photon ripples. In clumps of matter, the space fabric moving through the particles (as explained above) would tend to slow down the uncurling of the particle. So the level at which this happens would then be affected by the amount of space moving through the particle (proportionate to the size of the clump), along with the orientation of the surrounding space as a result of the properties of particles, like charge, spin, etc (which might present as the shape of the distortion resulting from the unique nature/configuration of each type of particle). This would mean that, although the bulk of the added space would be produced by particles in clumps, the highest percentage of annihilating EP’s would be in interstellar space (in our current universe). This could form part of the CMBR and cosmic rays . That is it for now. Please take a few deep breaths before ripping me to shreds!

First off, thanks for the reply! It would only be the centre of the collection of matter that comprises our universe, as in this model space-time is infinite. So even though a centre of our matter-universe exists, we would not be able to detect it. In this model, space is still expanding (as a result of the particles uncurling) in a fairly uniform manner, so that we would see exactly what we see today from our perspective, i.e. we would still see a uniform expansion from any arbitrary point chosen. Yeh, I guess I did contradict myself there. In this model they are the basic ripples illustrated by the sound wave in the steel cable analogy. This idea sprang into existence in my mind initially only with the premise that matter might be explained as matter-manifolds. When I started typing it down, many of the pieces fell into place consciously that I presumably have been considering subconsciously. So I included photons in the initial definition. I will fix that. As to permittivity and permeability, yes that is more or less what I meant: Most of the features one would ascribe to an infinite volume of very soft elastic rubber. As to half-life of particles, it is my understanding that individual particles have half-lives themselves, where roughly half of them would annihilate into photons after a certain period. This period is obviously a VERY long time, with protons’ half-live being calculated to well over the suspected age of the universe (in the order of 10^35 years). So it is distinct from radioactive decay, where an atomic nucleus decays into another elemental nucleus by the emission of alpha, beta or gamma radiation. Well, imagine crumpling a sheet of cellophane and releasing it. The properties of the space-time fabric (in this model) is such that it does uncurl, slowly, having isotropic expansion as a result. True. The amplitude in my analogy represents the amount of tension the particle exerts on space-time (gravity as a result of mass). So the higher the enclosed area of the particle, the higher its mass, the more resistance to movement occurs (inertia). So a lighter particle would be able to accelerate faster with the same amount of force applied to it. As the particle moves faster and faster, the elastic rebound pressure of the space-time fabric gets more pronounced as the movement tries to increasingly deform the fabric at a faster rate, until a huge amount of resultant force is needed to gain a small amount of velocity. No matter (excuse the pun) how much resultant force is applied, it would still not be able to travel as fast as a non-folded sound wave (photon) would be able to travel. Such a traveling particle would get flattened in a face-on direction as a result of this resistance to deformity of space-time (length contraction). Also, the particle wave-bundle would swell as it moves faster (mass gain). I can understand that. This idea mostly exists as a mind experiment, so the terms I use is an effort to describe the mental movie of sorts. I am happy to clarify any points that are unclear. I know it is radical, whimsical and mostly devoid of proper scientific terms. In my mind, though, I can’t find any problems with it thus far. If it turns out to be incorrect because of some unassailable hurdle, it would at least have been a rewarding mind exercise. Thanks again for your attention!

So do something already!

I am wondering how it might be possible to explain the michelson-morley experiment using this model. One feature of the model is the fact that matter waves move through space and the space released from uncurling particles is moving in all sorts of directions relative to conglomerations of matter. The earth moves around the sun, the sun around the galactic centre, the galaxy around the centre of gravity of the cluster, the cluster around the centre of gravity of the supercluster. So how could it be possible to measure the effect this has on the experiment? One has to concider frame dragging as well, since it is no longer confined to open space. In the experiment light behaves as if no aether wind exists. So the only candidate for an explanation would frame dragging. I understand that experiments to test frame dragging by the earth are being devised or already underway. I wonder if it may be possible to test the prediction of my model that frame dragging would also occur deep underground?

Good question and this is why I posted it here: to hopefully get some initial feedback as to if this hypothesis would even warrant further investigation. I have no illusions pertaining to my level of physics knowledge, however in my mind’s eye it adds up. There might though be some obvious, off the bat contradictions or violations of currently known laws or theories that would immediately invalidate the hypothesis. This is mainly what I would like some feedback on. One potential area of interest would be how the relativity principle would function in this setup. Since the particle is simply a complicated wave existing and traveling in the medium of space, the way it affects the fabric of space around it could be considered as part of the particle itself. If I had to make a prediction, I would think (from some of the premises of this hypothesis) that the half-life of some particles would be affected when traveling at high velocities in a particle accelerator. I am not too sure if this would be observable though. It has been quite a few years since I last read a full non-fiction science book, but this idea of mine started taking form maybe 5 or so years ago. I searched some terms on Wikipedia (I know) and was totally blown away by some the parallels I saw with my idea in various subjects. Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-creation_cosmology, and this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality, and this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemannian_manifolds, if you will. It looks like the part of my postulate dealing with the creation of the universe bares some resemblance to SCC. From this, I guess my idea of matter could be described as complex Riemannian manifolds? I think the initial seed for my idea sprang from wave-particle duality. Here I take it a bit further in suggesting that matter effectively IS a wave in the form of a non-static complex Riemannian manifold. My hypothesis also suggests the interconnectivity of space, providing some intuitive basis for dislocality. It also, seemingly, only allows for 3 spatial dimensions. Thoughts? I searched some terms on Wikipedia (I know) and was totally blown away by some the parallels I saw with my idea in various subjects. It seems that the part of my postulation dealing with the creation of the universe bare some resemblance to Self Creation Cosmology. From this, I guess my idea of matter could be described as complex Riemannian manifolds? I think the initial seed for my idea sprang from wave-particle duality. Here I take it a bit further in suggesting that matter effectively IS a wave in the form of a non-static complex Riemannian manifold. My hypothesis also suggests the interconnectivity of space, providing some intuitive basis for dislocality. It also, seemingly, only allows for 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time. Also thought of this: When a particle travels, in this scenario, the elastic rebound pressure (or the material attribute of space that resists deformity) would cause a tightening of the geometric attributes of the particle face-on with the direction of travel, both increasing the tension in the fabric of the particle-wave manifold (mass) and linearly flattening the particle in the direction of travel. Both of these products of movement would be direct functions of the properties of the space fabric. One possible problem though could arise when relative viewpoints are considered. These situations would occur independent of ANY observer. Another thing is that light traveling relative to normal matter would not behave as predicted by relativity, in that it would slow down from the perspective of the normal matter when both travel in the same direction. I am curious as to whether every aspect of the relativity theory in regards to light have been experimentally verified. Keep in mind that in my hypothesis, space is filled with Riemann manifold waves of different varieties and a distinct photon wave whose speed is governed by the propagating properties of the fabric of space (analogous to sound in some ways). So from that, moving matter would behave in the same manner as observed by a bystander as predicted by relativity, except that those changes would occur in an absolute sense, independent of any observer. Thoughts? What I would like, if possible, is for you guys to give me an example of something known in physics and then challenge me to explain it using my model. That would do two things: possibly debunk this model as well as provide some good mental exercise for me and anyone who wants to take part. C'mon, challenge me.

Hey guys, I posted this on another forum and was wondering what you might think of this. Mods, feel free to move to another section if deemed appropriate. Lets for the moment say that space itself is infinite and all matter was created in a small area as a result of spontaneous vacuum polarization. Also assume that all matter, including photons, are nothing more than folded up space and the spontaneous annihilation of matter according to their respective half lives are in fact the folded space unfolding in an instant, sending the most basic ripples possible (photons) in all directions, according to the as yet unknown propagating attributes (viscosity variables) of space. The expansion of space might be a result of the slow unfolding of all matter. So in thermodynamic terms, matter was created from nothing, but eventually it will revert to a neutral matter free state, effectively canceling out the imbalance? To illustrate the folding of space as in the case of matter, imagine an infinite volume of very soft and elastic rubber. Now imagine tweezers that does not interact with the rubber, except for the tip. Now close the tweezers, gripping, say, a Planck length size of space. Twist it around in all directions making a few revolutions in every direction. Now imagine how the rubber would stretch around the spot where the particle has been created. Imagine the color changing according to the tension in that part of the rubber. Release the tweezers and the new particle stays there. Making another particle right next to it would put further tension in the rubber, increasing the circumference of the color change (gravity) as well as the degree of color change close to the two particles. To illustrate some idea of other forces, lets think of space as long piece of, say, steel cable .When a fast up and down movement is made, a transverse, two-dimensional wave is created that travels along the length of the wire. This illustrates the movement of standard particles like protons through space. If you tap the cable with a hammer, a sound is created whose speed is limited by the material properties of the cable. This longitudinal wave travels at a much faster (and maximum) rate than the transverse wave of normal matter and illustrates a photon. The speed of the matter-wave would be susceptible to the speed of the up-and-down movement (resultant force) and would increasingly be negatively affected by the elastic rebound pressure and internal friction. It would travel faster when the amplitude is smaller accompanied by increased speed in the up-and-down movement until the wave becomes small and energetic enough for it to propagate longitudinally. This illustrates the speed of light limit. Ridicule away. :eyebrow: Sorry for double post. Here are some Q&A later on: Quote: By folding, do you mean that a further extent to the matter than we can see, is composed of hidden extra dimensional substrates that can neither react with known matter or allow for any resultant causation? The matter would be analogous to the transverse wave in the steel cable, only more curled up in different directions. Matter would then travel like the transverse wave, in that it is only the curled-up shape that travels, so it would be susceptible to the elastic rebound pressure of space. As the matter moves faster, this rebound pressure would apply a greater and greater force in the opposite direction. Like the difference between falling into water from 1 meter and 50 meters. The more the force to deform the water is applied faster, the more inertia and internal static- and kinetic friction become prevalent (analogy to space). Quote: But, by saying that matter was created from "nothing", doesn't that also mean that there was nothing to create matter in the first place? I would think that there would need to be at least some minuscule catalyst to the universes formation from the start. As I understand it, virtual particles can spontaneously be created in empty space like in vacuum polarization. So with space and time being indefinite in this scenario, a huge creation event could have happened. However small the chance of that happening, given enough time, it would eventually happen. The initially created matter could even provide some EM fields to facilitate the creation of more matter in a sort of chain reaction. Quote: In your second example, it seems like your making a more simplistic process more complicated than it needs to be. Are you basically trying to say that the properties of space time itself, have various limiting properties? The second part is basically an elaborate analogy for you guys to be able to better conceptualize the conditions and the basics of some interactions in the scenario. I am a usually poor at voicing my thoughts, so I hope you can form some idea of what I am trying to get across. Quote: And, isn't it also the particle with the least resistance, if any, in the vacuum of space? Well, then it is only the speed of the highest velocity discharge that we know of, it doesn't mean that there isn't another process that could succeed the discharge speed of a photon. Yes, I tried to provide the analogy for that. In the steel cable, the fastest wave possible is the longitudinal sound wave produced by tapping it with a hammer. A wave can’t, to my knowledge, travel any faster than that sound wave through its medium (space).