PAPER: A Fluid Model of Matter

[Ghideon]

46 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'll leave it to Strange to explain to you why 4 spatial dimensions plus time, does not provide for stable orbits.

@william1952 In the meantime, here is a paper that could be a starting point for further reading: "On the dimensionality of spacetime". 

Quote

As was pointed out by Ehrenfest back in 1917 [4], neither classical atoms nor planetary orbits can be stable in a space with n > 3, and traditional quantum atoms cannot be stable either.

https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf

The paper explains how there are issues with any idea that requires another number of dimensions than 3+1. The paper also provides references for further reading.

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Ghideon
grammar

[studiot]

7 hours ago, Ghideon said:

 

As was pointed out by Ehrenfest back in 1917 [4], neither classical atoms nor planetary orbits can be stable in a space with n > 3, and traditional quantum atoms cannot be stable either.

Thank you so much for reminding me of the man's name, I have been desperately trying to remember. Ehrenfest.  +1

 

 

12 hours ago, william1952 said:

None. I'm a theorist, not an experimenter.

Einstein was a theoretical Physicist. But he was also good at something a theoretical Physicist must do. Relating theory to observational reality.

Think about these two simple real world situations.

1) If you place a stack of plates so they are completely submerged in the washing basin. Then create a vortex in the water above the plates by swirling the washing up brush above them,

The plates will rise to the surface, one by one.
Clearly indicating a vertical force generated at right angles to the two dimensional rotational ones.

2) A rotating object (say a spinning disk) also moving along a linear track, will experience a force at right angles to both the linear motion and the spin.

Now step that up to a 4D situation.
What forces are generated in the fourth dimension, according to your model?

[william1952]

I have spent the allocated time for my 'hobby' this evening trying to get some numbers together for Studiot, attached. I apologize for not getting more done tonight, and will get to your posts shortly. Thank you again for taking the time. -W

fmomCalculations.xlsx

[studiot]

2 hours ago, william1952 said:

I have spent the allocated time for my 'hobby' this evening trying to get some numbers together for Studiot, attached. I apologize for not getting more done tonight, and will get to your posts shortly. Thank you again for taking the time. -W

fmomCalculations.xlsx 15.58 kB · 0 downloads

Thank you for the calculations.
I am not sure what I am supposed to do with them, they appear to be conventional 3D.
I was lloking for understanding, not numbers.

The point of my two questions above was to note the interplay of 3D dynamics is complete. No activity requires a fourth axis at right angles to the other three, but on the other hand would immediately show that one existed if this was the case but unexplained effects.

Take my second example. Label the normal three axes U, V, W and a speculative fourth one X, using a right handed system.

Looking at my sketch,

Two pulleys A  &  B, are mounted on a base which rotates clockwise in the U_W plane, with angular velocity w about the V axis.
Threaded round the pulleys is a continuous belt that runs with linear velocity s.
Describe what happens to the belt as a result of the total motion?
Actual numbers are not necessary, though formulae are possible for the observed forces acting.

The resulting force appears parallel to the U_W plane and at right angles to the belt.
If there was a fourth dimension, we would see the effect of this on the belt. In which plane would this effect act?

Edited May 21, 2020 by studiot

[william1952]

Missed a factor of c...

fmomCalculations.xlsx

[william1952]

On 5/20/2020 at 1:42 AM, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

We need more than assertions here.

Please provide some calculations based on your model that demonstrate that your model produce quantitatively correct predictions.

 

!

Moderator Note

As you very obviously don't have a clue what the big bang model is this claim is obviously false.

It might be a reasons for mistaken and largely ignorant beliefs about the Big Bang, but that is not really relevant.

 

!

Moderator Note

Ah, "a vortex", of course. I wondered when we would get to that.

I see little point in this thread staying open. Unless you can produce some mathematical predictions that are testable (ie. quantitative).

 

And that is part of the problem. Why not study some physics before pretending you can overturn it. Imagine going to a car maker and saying, "I have no idea how the internal combustion engine works, but I have invented a better one"

- Thank you for reviewing my calculations.

- I have, again, reviewed documentation on the Big Bang. I continue to feel it was characterized by the release of a great deal of energy in a short amount of time. This is all the model needs.

- I have adopted your explanation that it is "expansion from a hot, dense state".

- I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion of the Big Bang.

- If you have specific points why the Big Bang would not form up into a blast wave, please share them.

- Otherwise, let's agree to disagree on this issue.

-I'm not clear about "Ah, a vortex..." This is what we have been discussing all along.

- I have a Masters in Physics from the University of Chicago. I am qualified to enter a Physics chat.

- I know a lot of people talk about time as a dimension. I have made my position clear.  I don't believe i am speaking from a position of ignorance.

-W

 

 

On 5/20/2020 at 2:10 AM, studiot said:

Thank you for clarifying that point, I rather thought that was the case and it makes a huge difference.

It means that your hypothesis can be discussed without reference to Relativity, at least initially.

After all, Relativity is not the only effect in the Universe.

 

So fundamentally we are considering the hypothesis that there exists a fourth spatial dimension.

Given the title of your thread I can see your source of inspiration for this.

Treatments of fluid dynamics is usually developed in the plane (ie two dimensions) and much useful work can indeed be done in this way.
Flow patterns abound and formal mathematics using  'sources' and 'sinks' is available and works to explain and predict many phenomena in real fluids.
Such 'sources' and 'sinks' invoke activity in an additional, unseen,  spatial dimension to account for these phenomena. Typically the third dimension.

So it is not unreasonable to investigate extending this notion to our 3D world by postulating a fourth spatial dimension.

However such a postulate brings with it the need to investigate other phenomena a fourth dimension would also create.

It is about 200 years since this notion was first clearly enunciated and some investigators have been looking for evidence ever since.
To date, none has been found, where there ought to be some, for instance in the casting of 'shadows' by 4D objects.

Two classic example of hypotheses that foundered on the rocks of failing to expain everything the hypothesis implied were

The hypothesis that energy is some kind of fluid with special properties.
and
The nature of fire as evolving some special fluid.

(Both failed fluid 'theories')

 

So I hope this discussion can proceed without a courtroom inquisition of challenge and rebuttal.

 

- Relativistic mass increase, in this theory, doesn't need Relativity. No mechanism has been found for relativity. The particle diameter doesn't change, so the particle must put on density?

- There have been many failed hypothesis. Neither of these is relevant to my model.

- While you mention 2 dimensional fluid dynamics, there is lots of 3-D fluid dynamics problems and concepts.  Any dimension can have a fluid. Only in 4 dimensions do we start to see rotational tensors, for example. 

- "So I hope this discussion can proceed without a courtroom inquisition of challenge and rebuttal."  Me too. I just want to get the idea out there. Obviously, there are some things yet to be covered, but my question is: does the overall concept warrant investigation?

- W

 

On 5/20/2020 at 4:50 AM, Mordred said:

The correct definition for a dimension is an independent mathematical variable or object. 

The X,y ,z coordinates are three spatial dimensions while time becomes the fourth dimension.

All four variables can change value without affecting the other. 

Though relativity gives time dimensionality of length by using the interval ct.

- The correct definition of dimensions is the number of numbers needed to specify a point in space. Generally,  it's considered to be the number of axis you can put in a space, all  orthoganol to each other.

- I have discussed my objection to calling time a dimension.

- W

On 5/20/2020 at 5:54 AM, MigL said:

So if you look at the night sky in the radial direction ( perpendicular to direction of expansion ), you should see a vast empty void that the 'active layer' is expanding into, or a smaller ( but still vast ) void that the 'active layer' has expanded out from.
We see none of those things in our universe.

Are you maybe describing another make-believe universe ?
That is not what 'theorists' do.

Or are you postulating 4 spatial dimensions pus time ?
( can't be sure withyour mixed terminology )

In which case, the 'blast surface' would have an expanding 'thickness', as it moves radially outward.

But that is still not our universe.
I'll leave it to Strange to explain to you why 4 spatial dimensions plus time, does not provide for stable orbits.
( he just learned that and he's dying to share the information  )

- In this model, you are made up of particles that are cylinders. They occupy all of active x4. You cannot 'turn' and face in x4.

- Yes, the blast thickness will change. But it is the only metric in the system. All else changes with it. The measured meter shrinks.

- I have read the paper on why nothing can exist in 4 dimensions. A lot of mathematicians will be dismayed by this. Obviously, i'm waiting for further evidence.

-W

On 5/20/2020 at 6:23 AM, Ghideon said:

@william1952 In the meantime, here is a paper that could be a starting point for further reading: "On the dimensionality of spacetime". 

https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf

The paper explains how there are issues with any idea that requires another number of dimensions than 3+1. The paper also provides references for further reading.

 

- I have read the paper. Obviously i, and a couple thousand mathematicians, disagree. -W

[Mordred]

Use the mathematical definition. You will find you will need this to understand higher dimensions such as those in configuration and parameter space.

 The key is the effective degrees of freedom or parameters. Obviously every professional physicist disagrees with your objection as time is a mainstream accepted dimension under relativity.

This is because time can be graphed on a spacetime graph. One can treat any graph under a configuration or parameter space. Not all spaces are topological spaces. Though under GR8 you have coordinate time. As well as proper time.

This is because every coordinate in a field has its own potential. In a simplification each coordinate can have its own rate of time that depends upon the potential of its locality. 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Mordred

[william1952]

On 5/20/2020 at 1:47 PM, studiot said:

Thank you so much for reminding me of the man's name, I have been desperately trying to remember. Ehrenfest.  +1

 

 

Einstein was a theoretical Physicist. But he was also good at something a theoretical Physicist must do. Relating theory to observational reality.

Think about these two simple real world situations.

1) If you place a stack of plates so they are completely submerged in the washing basin. Then create a vortex in the water above the plates by swirling the washing up brush above them,

The plates will rise to the surface, one by one.
Clearly indicating a vertical force generated at right angles to the two dimensional rotational ones.

2) A rotating object (say a spinning disk) also moving along a linear track, will experience a force at right angles to both the linear motion and the spin.

Now step that up to a 4D situation.
What forces are generated in the fourth dimension, according to your model?

- Einstein used the 'thought experiment'. Much of what he wrote about was not observable at the time.

- You are discussing the pressure loss due to fluid motion. There is still 2-d rotation in a 4-D system, and the plates will rise the same. But only in the 4D system is a rotational tensor possible. You can have 2 separate rotations that don't interact with each other.

-W

 

11 hours ago, studiot said:

Thank you for the calculations.
I am not sure what I am supposed to do with them, they appear to be conventional 3D.
I was lloking for understanding, not numbers.

The point of my two questions above was to note the interplay of 3D dynamics is complete. No activity requires a fourth axis at right angles to the other three, but on the other hand would immediately show that one existed if this was the case but unexplained effects.

Take my second example. Label the normal three axes U, V, W and a speculative fourth one X, using a right handed system.

Looking at my sketch,

Two pulleys A  &  B, are mounted on a base which rotates clockwise in the U_W plane, with angular velocity w about the V axis.
Threaded round the pulleys is a continuous belt that runs with linear velocity s.
Describe what happens to the belt as a result of the total motion?
Actual numbers are not necessary, though formulae are possible for the observed forces acting.

The resulting force appears parallel to the U_W plane and at right angles to the belt.
If there was a fourth dimension, we would see the effect of this on the belt. In which plane would this effect act?

- There is no change with this configuration in 4D. Everything happens in 3D, as before. You have not referenced the fourth dimension.

- a 4D effect would be if something appeared in your 3D space, grew larger and then smaller, and then disappeared. This would be a 4D hypersphere interacting with your 3D space. Or if (a very large) triangle were found to have angles > 180 degrees. There would be a 4D bulge in the space.

-W

[Mordred]

Please don't make the mistake of thinking science stopped at Einstein with regards to relativity. I lost count how often I hear quotes from Einstein, Lorenz, Minkowskii etc.

 They become largely irrelevant with current research. We have extreme precision tests that GR is highly accurate. Even going so far as to measure time dilation at a distance of a single meter.

Your paper needs far far more work if it ever has a chance of overturning relativity. ( not that I can see anything in it that has a remote chance as written thus  far)

[william1952]

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Use the mathematical definition. You will find you will need this to understand higher dimensions such as those in configuration and parameter space.

 The key is the effective degrees of freedom or parameters. Obviously every professional physicist disagrees with your objection as time is a mainstream accepted dimension under relativity.

This is because time can be graphed on a spacetime graph. One can treat any graph under a configuration or parameter space. Not all spaces are topological spaces. Though under GR8 you have coordinate time. As well as proper time.

This is because every coordinate in a field has its own potential. In a simplification each coordinate can have its own rate of time that depends upon the potential of its locality. 

- i believe i am using the mathematical description. This is what has put me at odds with the physic's definition. 

- There are lots of 'freedoms': color, temperature, weight. Also called properties. Nobody calls weight a dimension. Not a big deal. I am referring only to 4 spacial dimensions. You can call time anything you like.

-W

[Mordred]

Well physics does apply the mathemical definition. However as gauge groups tensors etc became more common. The need for higher dimensions such as M theory etc caused the commonly understood definition to be refined to include degrees of freedom. Kaluzu Klien 5d is another example. 

 Anyways your theory specifies 4d Spatial dimensions which in itself I have no issue with. An example of this could be the addition of the circle group U(1) under gauge group theory. Which describes a topological space embedded on 3d space.

The mathematics in your model is sorely lacking in needed details. You need to start with mathematically defining your two layers. Then describe the connection between the two layers mathematically. Images are insufficient. You should be able to mathematically describe your theory completely without the use of a single image. 

Also I will not open your xlsx document you linked. Please convert to off.

 

2 hours ago, william1952 said:

- Thank you for reviewing my calculations.

- I have, again, reviewed documentation on the Big Bang. I continue to feel it was characterized by a blast wave

This is incorrect. If you look at expansion itself you will find it is homogeneous and isotopic. (No preferred direction and location) A blast wave has a point of origin and a preferred direction. Observational evidence does not support this.

If you take the galaxies as reference points expansion causes separation of those galaxies without any change in the angles between multiple galaxies.

You cannot get this from a blast wave that is inhomogeneous and anisotropic.

 

I would honestly suggest you study the FLRW metric of the LCDM model.

If you did you would realise that cosmology applies the thermodynamic laws and the subsequent fluid equations. Ie via the ideal gas laws of a adiabatic and isentropic expansion.

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Mordred

[william1952]

Let me opine for a minute. It is said the simplest explanation is usually the right one. In this model, the universe is ether and energy. In the current model, it is a plethora of particles, most of which no one has found a use for. A ‘Relativistic Transform’ that no one has suggested a mechanism for. Unseen ‘fields’ that permeate empty space. ‘Action from a distance’. A wave that needs no medium. Transverse mass that’s different from longitudinal mass. Unexplained bremsstrahlung.

Whether my theory has legs or not, these are things that should puzzle, not ring true. I think the skeptical observer always has an eye on established theory. Lots of theories have fallen by the wayside. No one should be married to any single one.

-W

 

[Strange]

5 hours ago, william1952 said:

- If you have specific points why the Big Bang would not form up into a blast wave, please share them.

 

!

Moderator Note

As I have acted as a moderator on this thread, I'm afraid I cannot.

But your statements in this post prove that you still have no idea about the Big Bang model. Everything you have said about it is wrong.

 

[joigus]

 

5 hours ago, william1952 said:

- If you have specific points why the Big Bang would not form up into a blast wave, please share them.

Here's a starter:

Horizons problem

(Spatial) flatness problem

Cosmological constant problem (vacuum energy)

Exact solutions of GR alone could not account for the first two. Part of the reasons why cosmologists moved to inflationary models. More in general (don't forget we're living in the fine-tuning era of physics and cosmology) and how to get over it:

Fine tuning

Also, and on a different order of questions, but related, what are your predictions for these?:

\[\varOmega_{\textrm{matter}}\]

\[\varOmega_{\varLambda}\]

\[\varOmega_{\textrm{dark matter}}\]

\[\varOmega_{\textrm{radiation}}\]

all of which can be assessed from observational input.

[Mordred]

5 hours ago, william1952 said:

Let me opine for a minute. It is said the simplest explanation is usually the right one. In this model, the universe is ether and energy. In the current model, it is a plethora of particles, most of which no one has found a use for. A ‘Relativistic Transform’ that no one has suggested a mechanism for. Unseen ‘fields’ that permeate empty space. ‘Action from a distance’. A wave that needs no medium. Transverse mass that’s different from longitudinal mass. Unexplained bremsstrahlung.

Whether my theory has legs or not, these are things that should puzzle, not ring true. I think the skeptical observer always has an eye on established theory. Lots of theories have fallen by the wayside. No one should be married to any single one.

-W

 

 Unfortunately it's clear you don't have a good understanding of the current models of relativity, the LCDM (big bang model) or particle physics.

So let's start with some basic terminology. First energy does not exist on its own. It is the ability to perform work and is a property of a system or state.

Mass is resistance to inertia change. Quite frankly particle physics does an excellent job explaining mass with its coupling constants. Even going so far as to being able to predict the mass of numerous particles prior to detecting those particles. A good example is the predictions for the mass of the Higgs boson.

I have no idea why you believe transverse mass differs from longitudinal mass. The primary forms of mass is invariant mass (rest mass) and variant mass ( inertial mass) so please provide a citation on the transerve and longitudinal mass.

Occam's razer only applies if a simpler model can perform the same degree of predictive and falsifiable accuracy. Your hypothesis is nowhere near that point.

 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, william1952 said:

In the current model, it is a plethora of particles, most of which no one has found a use for.

Why does that matter? Most of them are very short-lived, so we could not use them anyway. But I think we do well with the neutrons, protons and electrons that persist.

  

5 hours ago, william1952 said:

A ‘Relativistic Transform’ that no one has suggested a mechanism for.

Because it's not a mechanical effect, i.e. it's not a force or interaction. 

However, it is an easily-derived consequence of c being invariant. It's not like relativity was fabricated from nothing.

 

5 hours ago, william1952 said:

Unseen ‘fields’ that permeate empty space. ‘Action from a distance’. A wave that needs no medium. Transverse mass that’s different from longitudinal mass. Unexplained bremsstrahlung.

Whether my theory has legs or not, these are things that should puzzle, not ring true. I think the skeptical observer always has an eye on established theory. Lots of theories have fallen by the wayside. No one should be married to any single one.

Models work if they match experimental results, and allow us to predict results before we do the experiment. Models describe behavior, not truth/reality. e.g. a phonon does not need to physically exist for it to be useful in describing nature. Don't make the mistake or reifying what is used in models as an argument against the model.

The ultimate question is whether or not your (or anybody's) model matches what nature does. For the ones you have described that comprise mainstream physics, the answer is "yes, the model matches experiment"

 

[studiot]

12 hours ago, william1952 said:

- There is no change with this configuration in 4D. Everything happens in 3D, as before. You have not referenced the fourth dimension.

- a 4D effect would be if something appeared in your 3D space, grew larger and then smaller, and then disappeared. This would be a 4D hypersphere interacting with your 3D space. Or if (a very large) triangle were found to have angles > 180 degrees. There would be a 4D bulge in the space.

 

I find this peremptory dismissal disappointing to say the least least.

Especially as it shows you have not read my post properly, or you would have responded to the points I actually made, not ones I did not make.

 

Especially considering these contradictory posts from yourself.

12 hours ago, william1952 said:

- i believe i am using the mathematical description. This is what has put me at odds with the physic's definition. 

 

Perhaps since you also say this, you should leave Mathematics to Mathematicians, and concentrate on the Physics, which is what I was trying to get you to do.

 

13 hours ago, william1952 said:

- The correct definition of dimensions is the number of numbers needed to specify a point in space. Generally,  it's considered to be the number of axis you can put in a space, all  orthoganol to each other.

 

Your definition of 'dimension' is woefully inadequate from a Mathematics point of view.
For instance it is possible to represent a system of N coordinates by a system of (N-1) coordinates or (N+1) coordinates, and this is not the end of it.
For example let N = 2 then an equivalent sytem of (N-1) coordinates can be formed by a parametric system. One parameter (number) is sufficient to represent 2D.
And a system of (N+1) coordinates is known as homogenous coordinates particular examples being barycentric or areal coordinates. These appear as triples for 2D.

13 hours ago, william1952 said:

I have a Masters in Physics from the University of Chicago. I am qualified to enter a Physics chat.

 

So perhaps you concentrate more on the Physics and listen more to the Maths.

 

[Ghideon]

On 5/20/2020 at 9:55 AM, william1952 said:

Look, i'm obviously a Big Bang novice here.

That's no problem; then we are on the same level, compared to the real experts engaged in this thread. 

 

15 hours ago, william1952 said:

- I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion of the Big Bang.

Ok. Then you might want to post a revised version of the paper? It's hard to avoid discussing Big Bang when the paper can be correct only if big bang model is incorrect. Anyway, let's try postpone big bang discussion and try another angle then:

On 5/20/2020 at 9:55 AM, william1952 said:

The blast wave and the active layer are the same thing. They are 1.8 billion light years away from the center in a 4D space. We are on a part of the active layer called the Forward Boundary Space. This is where light is.

Can you explain the mathematical details how you get the number 1.8 billion light years?
Where is this center from our point of view at this time?

 

On 5/19/2020 at 8:45 AM, william1952 said:

The speed of sound is sqrt(k/rho). In ether, this results in the speed of light. 

Can you show how you derive that?

 

On 5/16/2020 at 7:49 AM, william1952 said:

speeding away from the center at c

Since you use "c" can I, for further questions,  assume you mean the speed of light in vacuum? 

 

 

15 hours ago, william1952 said:

- I have a Masters in Physics from the University of Chicago. I am qualified to enter a Physics chat.

I do not have a Masters degree in Physics from the university. I am hopefully not disqualified from chatting about your ideas.

 

*) assuming you use c to mean the speed of light in vacuum.