The liquid quantum space

[Quantum_kaktus]

Hi guys,

Many of the theories about the fundamentals of space I know of always seemed kind of incomplete or to focussed on specific parts of it. Some simply don't "feel" right to me.

So over last couple of years I have been thinking a lot about my own kind of "theory of everything". I call it the liquid quantum space (as you probably already have guessed :-D).

Before you dig into it or respond to my post - no I'm not a physisist, and no, the theory is not yet complete. Many things here might seem weird/wrong or misplaced. But that is exactly why I post this here - to get feedback about what you like, what is unclear or even to propose experiments that could be conducted.

Anyway here it is:

########################################################################################

# Definition of space
Let’s assume before the big bang all there was is a space filled with a liquid out of quantum particles. Those particles interact with each other through a force we call "quantum attraction“. No other known force (eg. gravity) exists in this space. Quantum particles - or QPs - can be distinquished by their direction, velocity and their resonation.

As all QPs attact all other QPs they tend to clump together to form some form of proto matter. Proto matter particles (PMPs) themselves attract other QPs and PMPs.
This proto matter is only stable up to a certain „mass“ (mind there is no gravity involved). If such a proto matter particle accumulates too much mass, it disintigrates again. This is caused by the fact that the quantum matter particles resonate and after reaching the mass "tipping point" the quantum attaction force is lower than force created by the QP movement within the proto matter.
PMPs therefore constantly are created but disintegrate as they grow. This causes some sort of wobbling effect (= waves) within the quantum liquid.

If two massive PMPs (that have not yet reached the tipping point) collide, the result is a massive explosion (as the tipping point was far overreached). This creates a shockwave in the quantum liquid, leaving behind "empty" space (= zero density "subspace").
Within the shockwave front on the other hand the density of the quantum liquid is much higher than in the it normal would be.

The density is so high, that the pressure from the surrounding quantum matter allows the QPs to form much more massive proto matter particles.

What we persive as space is actually the condensed quantum liquid. Our space moves away from from the PMPs explosion (the big bang). The movement itself is what we persive as time. Massive objects (PMPs that clump together even further) lose energy and therefore travel at a lower speed relative to the space with less density. Observed from outside would looks as if the shockwave has dents (space curvature).

Massive objects made out of regular matter (PMPs that exceed the initial mass tipping point) don't cause grativity - as currently assumed (the relativly weak quantum attraction only acts on very short range, like on the atomic level). Instead the gravitational attraction is caused by the liquid space within the showckwave flowing at a faster velocity around to objects causing them to be pushed together. Gravitiy is therefore not a pulling force, but can rather be seen as an outside pressure.

As the initially stated, time can be seen as the movement away from the big bang. As massive objects are slowed down as they accumulate, they also move slower through time. Both the quantum liquid space and the "regular" space are only three dimensional. The reason why our 4th dimension is so different is that it is not a real dimension by its own but rather a "relative" one. Depending on the position of an observer "time would move" in a different physical direction.
If all interaction within the quantum space could be suspended, the three dimensions would still exist and could be observed. Time on the other hand could not be observed anymore.

# Implications
## Empty space
Most of our known universe is made out of almost nothing. At least from our perspective. In fact the density is just too low for regular matter to form. The QPs themselves are still there and moving even more than outside of the shockwave as the pressure is way higher. Quantum particles still have similar characteristics as in a less dense area - the clump together only to fall apart again. This wobbling is what is known as "virtual particles".
These particles can also be seen as the background radiation of the big bang.

## Gravitational lensing effect
The speed of light is different depending on the density of space. As around massive objects, like suns, the density is much higher then in empty space, a lensing effect can be observed (same as in regular liquids).

## Gravitational waves
As the quantum liquid space and the condensed space region of the shockwave front both behave as regular liquids do. Distortions caused by massive objects cause rippling effects or waves witin the medium.

## Acceleration of matter
When accelerating objects through empty space, the space itself causes frictional resistance (as it is not really empty). The more massive an object is the more energy has to be put into it's acceleration. On the other hand this implies that without constant acceleration the object would be slowed down by space and eventuelly halt (least relative to space itself).

## (Time) travelling
Travelling with a very high velocity causes time dilation because the acceleration force applied to the spaceship exceeds the force being caused by the shockwave itself. Thereforce the starship is keeping its course and is not drifted away by time. At the end of it's ride (even when coming back to its initial starting point) it be less away from the center point of the big bang as the surrounding space. Less time has gone by for the travelers.
If the speed of time (the movement of the shockwave front) could be exceeded in the direction of the local shockwave direction, travelling to the future can be achieved. If travelling far enough, the shockwave itself could be left. Although as soon as the spaceship would leave the area of condensed space and enter the "hyberspace" it would disintrigrate. If a shielding could be applied around the ship, to keep the space densitity high enough it could be possible to travel much faster than the speed of light (in regular space)

Travelling speed could also be increased by staying within the regular space, but creating two shields. One to keep the space around the ship pressurized, a second one to create a bubble around the ship that contains no quantum matter. This could be called a subspace bubble as it would have the same characteristics as the quantum space "behind" the shockwave. The speed of light within the bubble would be even higher than in hyperspace. The regular space would practically flowing around the bubble of empty space, moving along with the ship itself.

## Shape of the universe
The geometry of the unverse is a thin layer of a sphere. It is therefore not infinite. If travelling long enough in the same direction, one would eventuelly come back to the starting point. The absolute coordinates (relative to a fixed point outside of the shockwave) would not be the same though as the space itself moved.
Because of the curvature of the universe itself it is also not possible for an observer to look see himself from behind (if he could zoom in close enough) - even if gravitational lensing effects could somehow be prevented.
The line of sight is straight, resulting in universal horizon.
Every point on the surface of this expanding sphere is moving away from each other, causing the farther parts moving even faster.

## Quantum effects
Every resonating particle (QP, PMP or regular matter) causes waves that travel through space. When observing the wave (reading the inforation it carries) it is manipulated, as the observation itself causes other waves to distort the observed wave. This is the reason why quantum states can only be "read" once.
Furthermore the quantum entanglement can be explained with in a similar fashion.

# Possible experiments

## Fluid simulation to verify "gravitational pressure":

The fluid flows faster around two close two objects applying nearly no force in the center of the "shadow". There is more pressure top and bottom of the objects, so they would be pressed together.

I don't know if I interpret this the right way!

# Travelling within a bubble of low density space

Requirements:

• A probe floating in a tank filled with a liquid in free space (only neglectable gravitational pull)
• The probe is surrounded by a bubble of air
• The probe can be accelerated from outside the tank by appying magnetic force

The question is, if with this setup, less energy would be necessary to move the probe with the bubble in contrast to the same setup without the bubble. Or from another perspective: if with the same amount of energy the ship with the bubble moves faster.

########################################################################################

 

I hope this is not all too crazy for you guys :-D

Cheers,

Matti

 

[Ghideon]

Hello!

There are lots of things to address, here are a few initial questions to maybe allow for more comments or questions later:

21 minutes ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

liquid out of quantum particles.

Can you define liquid in this context? 

22 minutes ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

the density of the quantum liquid is much higher than in the it normal would be

Since liquids* are nearly incompressible fluids, how can the density be much higher? 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid 

[swansont]

How might one detect these quantum particles, and proto-matter particles? What properties do they have (e.g. spin, mass)? What is their relationship to particles we have detected?

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

Let’s assume before the big bang all there was is a space filled with a liquid out of quantum particles.

Is your model based on the idea of an explosion of "stuff" into empty space? (It looks like it, but I have trouble following your description.)

2 hours ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

Those particles interact with each other through a force we call "quantum attraction“.

What is the strength of this force? Is it purely attractive? Does it follow an inverse-square law or some other fiction?

3 hours ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

Quantum particles - or QPs - can be distinquished by their direction, velocity and their resonation.

What does "resonation" mean?

3 hours ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

If such a proto matter particle accumulates too much mass, it disintigrates again.

How much mass is "too much"?

3 hours ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

This is caused by the fact that the quantum matter particles resonate and after reaching the mass "tipping point" the quantum attaction force is lower than force created by the QP movement within the proto matter.

What is this "force created by the QP movement"? 

Quote

This causes some sort of wobbling effect (= waves) within the quantum liquid.

Why would it cause waves, rather than just random movement (like Brownian motion)? Waves imply that these disintegrations happen in a coordinated way: why?

3 hours ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

Gravitiy is therefore not a pulling force, but can rather be seen as an outside pressure.

Sigh. Do we really need to go through all the reasons why push gravity is impossible? Again? This was abandoned 200 years ago.

You need a material with physically impossible and contradictory properties. (For example, it has to flow through things with no effect but all be able to push them.)

Even then, it is not clear that it can reproduce Newtonian gravity.

And it certainly can't reproduce GR. Unless, of course, you have the math to show otherwise?

3 hours ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

These particles can also be seen as the background radiation of the big bang.

So now, suddenly, these mysterious QPs are photons? But there is no attractive force between photons.

3 hours ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

As around massive objects, like suns, the density is much higher then in empty space, a lensing effect can be observed (same as in regular liquids).

In which case, we would see dispersion. We don't.

3 hours ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

Furthermore the quantum entanglement can be explained with in a similar fashion.

How?

3 hours ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

Many of the theories about the fundamentals of space I know of always seemed kind of incomplete or to focussed on specific parts of it. Some simply don't "feel" right to me.

That is not really a good reason to make stuff up. It might be a good reason to be motivated to learn science though.

[Mordred]

As the remainder of the model requires addressing the above questions I will wait before adding more. Though from what I read above the presence of QP in the above don't define the space they reside in it.

Edited January 29, 2019 by Mordred

[Quantum_kaktus]

First I want to thank you all guys for responding that quickly (faster than I can respond ;-). That feedback was exactly what I was hoping for.

 

@Ghideon: you stated it yourself, they are nearly but still compressible. Given the fact that the explosion forces of the disolving proto matter causes the liquid to compress beyond what is possible under regular quantum liquid circumstances.
As I don't have any numbers (yet) this is one of the main points for what I'd really like to talk to a real physisist - that could actually run the numbers. The initial choice for this wording is that it feels more natural to think of as some sort of liquid instead of gas. Furthermore I'd like to integrate some aspects of the pilot wave theory. Imagine our visible matter to be just the "tip of the iceberg, but the actual size of the objects is way bigger. The space around this object seems to be more "condensed" (gravitational lensing), which causes the mentioned lensing effect. But in fact, the space around the object is actually the object (compressed liquid, proto matter), just only the invisible part, like with the bouncing droplet experiment.

This implies that all matter is both wave and particle at the same time.

@swansont I think we already detected them. I imagine the QPs as massless particles. An early idea was that they define themselves through the direction they vibrate. But that would mean that there would be an infinite number of possible QP types, which would make them hard to group.

Recently I though more of the idea that there is fixed number, that is yet unknown. They can be distinquished by the how strong the quantum attraction force is. This allows us to have different configurations for protomatter. Lets say we have three types: L, M and S (low, medium, strong), that ultimately lead to the various form of regular matter, eg. LLL could be an electron, whereas SSS could be a proton.

 

@Strange the proto matter is not exploding into empty space. I rather see this quantum liquid space as an infinite space all filled with those quantum particles. Altough I hate the fact that something is infinite. I always feel that this is just a hack. I like the fractal universe theory, implying that there is always a layer around the actualy space that we talk of. In stead of "zooming in" though, it would mean that we have to zoom out even further, to see the outer shell.

As mentioned above, the strenght of the purly attracting force differs from QP to QP. Though, I cannot at this time say anything about the actual "amount". I consider it pretty weak on far distances (mostly neglectable) but strong in closed distances, pretty much like gravity.

By "resonation" I mean, how much they vibrate, which in fact could be linked to the above mentioned strenght of the quantum attraction force!

The vibration seems to be necessary to explain some form of background disturbance that create waves within the medium itself. Otherwise how could some sort of motion ever have started? (which leads to the ultimate question of what is outside of this liquid quantum space ...)

I think that a small number of QPs (~20) depending on the strength of their attraction force could be enough to make them fall apart again. But as for all of my theory I don't have any numbers.

As the QPs vibrate, proto matter is always sort of unstable (same as regular matter). They constantly are crashing into each other (if that's even possible considered that they might be massless) pushing each other out of the proto matter "constellation". But they are bound by their attraction! More QPs also means more "disturbance" within the PMP ultimately lead to its decay.

Regarding the "wobbling". If you detonate an explosive underwater, it creates a (shock) wave. So why would an "exploding" (maybe we could call it differently?) PM not cause such an effect? I think if this works or not depends on the size of the PMP in contrast to a single QP?

Let's forget about the "pushing" gravitational force for a minute -> I'll revisit this later. (I promise).

Regarding the background radiation: according to the theory, photons are "made out of" QPs too. The quantum attraction only applies within the photon (and a short distance outside of the photon's "core). It's not a perfect methafor, but snow flakes stick together, but that doesn't mean that snow balls stick together, if they just "touch".

Quote

In which case, we would see dispersion. We don't. 

Can you explain this? Maybe this behaves differently on the quantum particle layer, unlike in our real world (photons through a glass of water?).

Quantum entanglement. Let's assume we have a photon. The observable part is not the full object (like in the bouncing droplet experiement). What if we "split" the drople? All of a sudden we could see it as two separated entities, although they are still connected through their invisible QP-part. We created two particles that share common properties. I have to admin that this is highly speculative, but well, that's this post at all, so yeah ...

Quote

That is not really a good reason to make stuff up. It might be a good reason to be motivated to learn science though.

That is a bit hurtful ... First I'm in no way claiming that I "know" the truth and everything else is bullshit! I don't just make up stuff and sell it that way!

Every theory started that way .. thinking about how stuff could work, and then integrate it into existing theories, designing experiments etc. The motivation behind the creation is unimportant.

My motivation behind this post is to gather feedback from you guys and maybe find someone whould is interested and also can run some numbers (I know the chance is very small haha :-D). But anyway. If you think this all is BS, than don't bother with it :-P

 

[Mordred]

You really haven't described enough for another person to possibly run numbers for you on...

The use of quantum particles isn't unusual for BB models, the early inflationary models used just that. One such type is the theorized inflaton of the chaotic eternal inflation. However in all cases those QP are mathematically defined. In your case it sounds like you have multiple species of quantum particles. Physicists don't like infinities either hence the BB model only describes [latex]10^{43)[/latex] seconds after the BB as any attempts prior lead to infinite quantities. Unless some cut-off is applied such as minimal Planck length. 

 I do recommend trying again to study current models first and foremost. You can take it from my personal experience that the manner physicists describe our universe has far more methodology and is rather highly logical once you learn to fully understand those models. It is very common for people to want to skip this learning stage and try to reinvent physics to match their way of thinking. I would actually average this to well over 50% of everyone that first starts learning cosmology tends to want to skip the learning to reinvent stage. 

Anyways as mentioned you need to better define your QP as a start, no one can run numbers based on the descriptives thus far.

 

 

 

[Quantum_kaktus]

@Mordred Yes I know that, but to find a more mathematical approach, I'd love to have another person, with whom I can talk to. I wanted to see if I can find people who like the idea in general and want to help improve it. For example the @Strange mentioned dispersion - that's something I had not though of before. That's exactly what I was hoping for.

At some point in time I hope that the idea can progress to a stage where it's possible to actually run the numbers. But understand that this will not be tomorrow, nor anytime soon (most likely never :-D) But who knows.

And besides, fun is my primary motivation. Fun thinking and discussing about stuff like that

Edited January 29, 2019 by Quantum_kaktus

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

But as for all of my theory I don't have any numbers.

Then this is all a bit pointless.

1 hour ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

Can you explain this? Maybe this behaves differently on the quantum particle layer, unlike in our real world (photons through a glass of water?).

In refraction, different frequencies are "bent" by different amounts. This is why we see rainbows. This doesn't happen with gravitational lensing.

But, sure, go ahead and make something else up about this not happening with your magic QPs.

1 hour ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

Regarding the "wobbling". If you detonate an explosive underwater, it creates a (shock) wave. So why would an "exploding" (maybe we could call it differently?) PM not cause such an effect?

If you have one explosion, you get a wave. If you have multiple explosions happening all over the place at random, you just get random noise, not a wave. Think of raindrops falling on the surface of a pond. It doesn't cause waves, just random ripples that don't go anywhere.

1 hour ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

Regarding the background radiation: according to the theory, photons are "made out of" QPs too.

So all you're saying is that the background radiation is made of photons. We already know that. We also have theory that exactly predicts its spectrum and temperature. Your vague waffle can't predict anything.

1 hour ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

That is a bit hurtful ... First I'm in no way claiming that I "know" the truth and everything else is bullshit! I don't just make up stuff and sell it that way!

But you are just making stuff up. (I don't know where "know the truth" and "everything else is bullshit" came from).

I just think it is a bit pointless to decide you don't understand or don't like science and then make up fairy tales instead.

1 hour ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

Every theory started that way

Not really, no.

Every other theory started with science. Not fantasy.

And before you can design experiments you need to be able to make testable (ie. quantitative, measurable) predictions. Can you? No.

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

As I don't have any numbers (yet) this is one of the main points for what I'd really like to talk to a real physisist - that could actually run the numbers.

Thanks for the answer! I find it interesting to analyse and discuss different aspects of cosmology (mainstream or not). But for someone to be able to "run numbers" there must be something to run the numbers in, some kind of model, even if all numbers are not yet known. When you say for instance:

1 hour ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

Given the fact that the explosion forces of the disolving proto matter causes the liquid to compress beyond what is possible under regular quantum liquid circumstances.

Let's say a physicist have a number of good models, running numerical simulations of various aspects of current mainstream theories. It could be the early universe or for instance a white dwarf or black holes or super novas. Does your "compression" include concepts like degenerate matter; electron degeneracy, neutron degeneracy? Or new concepts? How do a physicist have to modify the current models to be able to run numbers according to your idea? 

[Quantum_kaktus]

Hmm, I don't think it's pointless. Even without some backing math, someone can try to follow my descriptions finding logical errors or missing parts. Why are you always using the term "making up"? It has a very negativ touch (or does it just feel like it?). The first time something is though, it is always made up, so maybe so maybe this is not that negative at all :-P

Quote

If you have one explosion, you get a wave. If you have multiple explosions happening all over the place at random, you just get random noise, not a wave. Think of raindrops falling on the surface of a pond. It doesn't cause waves, just random ripples that don't go anywhere.

Good point, that would mean that such explosions would have to happen only very rarely.

I know that by now it can't predict anything. Why are you always treating this like it was a fully worked out theory? I clearly statet, that it isn't.

Quote

But you are just making stuff up. (I don't know where "know the truth" and "everything else is bullshit" came from).

I just think it is a bit pointless to decide you don't understand or don't like science and then make up fairy tales instead.

Thinking something new is always "making something" up, otherwise it wouldn't be new. It doesn't mean that it is true (or even better than existing stuff). But if we stop to make up things, then what's the point anyway? I feel like I'm repeating myself, am I?

So you mentioned that once or twice, I think that's enough. If you don't want to discuss that's ok!

[dimreepr]

24 minutes ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

But if we stop to make up things, then what's the point anyway?

fairy tales make us happy. But not right...  

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

Hmm, I don't think it's pointless. Even without some backing math, someone can try to follow my descriptions finding logical errors or missing parts. Why are you always using the term "making up"? It has a very negativ touch (or does it just feel like it?). The first time something is though, it is always made up, so maybe so maybe this is not that negative at all

Truth be told, there isn’t enough substance here for much of a critique. There’s no evidence that electrons have a structure, but if they are composites can we break them apart? And we already know that protons are made of quarks.

I don’t think it’s possible for massless particles to bind together. Bound states require a reduction in energy, which for massive particles shows up as a reduction in mass. You’d have to come up with new model for how this would be possible. Massless particles move at c. How does the exchange particle for the interaction behave?

Not having any math means vast amounts of this idea are still missing. The model is not a small detail. The math is typically the majority of the theory.

 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

And besides, fun is my primary motivation. Fun thinking and discussing about stuff like that

This may be the cause of your dismay over the whole "making stuff up" issue. Precision is usually more of a motivator in science, and it's always assumed folks come to a science discussion forum because they want to check ideas for their accuracy. You even mention that you were searching for the critique you're getting, from professional physicists who know what they're talking about. You've ticked all the boxes for a meaningful discussion.

So you need to understand why it's so important not to fill gaps in your knowledge with stuff you've made up, why it's being mentioned wrt your idea. Mainstream theory gives us our most trustworthy explanations, based on tested concepts and observations of nature. The scientific method tells us to remove as much guesswork from our explanations as possible, and focus on what can be supported by evidence.

But the biggest problem with making up answers to fit problems we don't understand is because, working with incomplete information, we tend to stitch together ideas that make PERFECT sense to us, but only to us. And that makes it extremely difficult to listen to reason that contradicts your idea. This is why it's being mentioned, in no uncertain terms. It's not to be mean, it's not personal at all. Think of it like you have a new idea for making it easier to pound screws in with a hammer, and people here are trying to introduce you to other tools first. 

[Quantum_kaktus]

Quote

The model is not a small detail. The math is typically the majority of the theory.

@swansont yes you are right here. But math only is a description of an idea. Without that idea you cannot create math. Well you can, but the question how usefull it is.

@Phi for All Filling the gaps is what I want! That's why I'm here.

Quote

Sigh. Do we really need to go through all the reasons why push gravity is impossible? Again? This was abandoned 200 years ago.

@Strange

Ok so there might be a misunderstanding. As far as I know Le Sage's theory it is not what I was thinking. The QPs that make up the quantum space don't push together regular matter in the way he explained it.

But through the movement in time (the shockwave moving away from its center point) massive objects, like a star move slower as the accumulator together. So they are "behind" in time (= closer to the center point, in comparison of the surrounding less dense area). In front of them space is less dense, which would allow surrounding particles to fill this gap. They are pushed torwards this less denser area closer to the massive object.

But you are right, now as I think about this it doesn't feel that good of an idea any more. There is a similar problem like with Le Sage's theory that could be explained with quantum attraction in a way, but I have to give it some time to think about it.

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

@swansont yes you are right here. But math only is a description of an idea. Without that idea you cannot create math. Well you can, but the question how usefull it is.

@Phi for All Filling the gaps is what I want! 

 

It’s a gap in the same sense that the Grand Canyon is a gap. You are not filling in details. You are fleshing out a skeleton, where many of the bones are missing. Because not only do you not have the math, you have not meshed this with other physics.

For example, you say an electron is a composite of three particles. These particles must then be fermions, because electrons are. But that also suggests that you can have electron excited states. But we don’t observe this.

Other issues will appear with each detail you try and nail down. This is why the hand-wave, sans math, never tends to pan out.

[Mordred]

Alright lets provide a starting point. Lets start with a scalar field of quantum particles. We don't know anything more about these particles in how they interact to go any further than this. We have no degrees of freedom to correlate to any of the quantum numbers nor do we know their interactions with other particles.

I will warn you this is a typical (very common application of quantum particles) it is the basis formula for a majority of inflationary models. Obviously you have described dynamics that will not match but we have to start somewhere....

For an uncharged scalar field of quantum particles we can apply the scalar modelling formula

[latex]w=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2-V(\phi)}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2+V(\phi)}[/latex] without further detail I can take this no further to distinguish this model from the literally thousands of models that have a quantum vacuum beginning....

details needed is which forces does it interact with. What spin does the particle have (the formula I posted only uses spin 0) Spin 0=a scalar field. Does it have an antiparticle pair ? In case your thinking all particles do google Neutrino in so far as we have yet to find the right hand neutrino though the models predict they should exist. What field interactions result in the QP creation ? Particles don't simply pop into existence without a reason, they require energy (ability to perform work) this can result from field anisotropies.

 

Edited January 29, 2019 by Mordred

[studiot]

3 hours ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

(the shockwave moving away from its center point)

Why would there be a shockwave ?

These only occur under certain very specific conditions.

 

[Mordred]

I have another way to supply a direction to identifying the properties of your QP to your thread. I mentioned spin above, Swansont has also asked about the spin. Why is this important, well the spin also determines the helicity of the particle in regards to its direction of momentum. Depending on the spin we can start to determine the properties of the field itself.

I gave an example for spin 0 particles, the inflaton (quasi particle) Higg's Boson are two examples. This is an uncharged field this means there is no average directional motion to the multi-particle system.  Another type of field is a charged field, an example is the EM radiation, this is a field with two charges where each charge induces two vector average directions this equates to spin [latex]\pm\frac{1}{2}[/latex].  Now in the case of the strong force and weak force this get more complex as they have color charges 3 per field. So spin vs charge isn't so easily matched.

However it is possible to describe  all three fields with spin 1/2 fields. This is where gauge theories and symmetry comes in handy...

Gravity however isn't as easy. Gravity only attracts it does not repel and as a consequence of its connection to spacetime itself has a unique spin.

Spin 2. 

So when we ask these questions it isn't to be difficult. However following the above, they are extremely important questions in order to determine how your model may behave

All bosons except gravity and the Higg's has spin 1. Graviton (theorized has spin 2) while Higg's spin 0. 

(Warning do not equate particle spin as a ball or top spinning. The term spin specifically deals with the symmetry relations of complex spinors. A spinor is not a vector it merely has properties that seem vector like however how they transform does not follow vector commutation rules.) For example a spin 1/2 particle has a 720 degree polarity rotation before restoring to its original polarity. A ball or top only has 360 degrees.

three commonly used types used in quantum theories are Hermitian, Dirac, Weyl and Majarona spinors. All three work with spin 1/2 fermions. However using a symmetry gauge group methodology we can pair any two spinors of the same type to describe spin 1. [latex] SO(4)=SU(2)\otimes SU(2)[/latex] which can be further broken down to its U(1) components.

(as I often do I post useful tidbits to other readers other than the OP) another distinction is that a spinor can have two or more components. Though the two common types are 2 and 4 components. Whereas a vector has two, (length of vector and direction) the length is the magnitude (scalar value)

Edited January 30, 2019 by Mordred

[Mordred]

13 hours ago, Quantum_kaktus said:

Hmm, I don't think it's pointless. Even without some backing math, someone can try to follow my descriptions finding logical errors or missing parts. 

I've just described some very essential missing parts 

[Eise]

On 1/28/2019 at 2:01 PM, Quantum_kaktus said:

On the other hand this implies that without constant acceleration the object would be slowed down by space and eventuelly halt (least relative to space itself).

This was for me the killer... If you make propositions that are inconsistent with established physics, then your model is worthless.