What is "i"?

[Butch]

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

I will gladly accept critique.

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

So, what is "i"?

[swansont]

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

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

[Butch]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

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

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

Okay, suppose the graviton is not a quanta, it has no spin, no wave function, no dimension etc. it is simply a point source of gravitation. If "a,b,c" represent gravitons and "i" is the tensor between the center of gravity of the pair "ab" and "c" then an oscillation in "i" must represent a photon. I deduce this because the scale of this system is among the smallest possible, thus the orbital period of "ab" would be very short, hence the frequency of the gravitational wave in the tensor would have a very high frequency. Once the phase difference of 180 degrees between "a" and "b" has been disturbed they would tend to return to a quiescent state of 180 degrees out of phase. The produced photon would have a wave nature and a particle nature since the wave medium is a spacial single dimension entity. Because "ab" return to a quiescent state the photon would be a packet. I could elaborate on the return to a quiescent state, but my hope is that it is obvious to you. What obviously is missing here is mass, however I do explain this in my blog. If you would like a link, pm me.

P.S.

The pair "ab" is a particle, it has dimension, spin, polarity etc.

Many other ideas are arising for me out of this first model, for example:

The pair "ab" demonstrates polarity, but what about charge? Could it be that a phase shift produces charge? There are so many ideas springing from this model, I hope some of you take an interest, I am just one old man.

Edited July 11, 2021 by Butch

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Butch said:

Okay, suppose the graviton is not a quanta, it has no spin, no wave function, no dimension etc.

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

 

6 hours ago, Butch said:

 it is simply a point source of gravitation. If "a,b,c" represent gravitons and "i" is the tensor between the center of gravity of the pair "ab" and "c" then an oscillation in "i" must represent a photon. I deduce this because the scale of this system is among the smallest possible, thus the orbital period of "ab" would be very short, hence the frequency of the gravitational wave in the tensor would have a very high frequency. Once the phase difference of 180 degrees between "a" and "b" has been disturbed they would tend to return to a quiescent state of 180 degrees out of phase.

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

The equation you have says i is not a tensor

photons have properties 

 

6 hours ago, Butch said:

The produced photon would have a wave nature and a particle nature since the wave medium is a spacial single dimension entity. Because "ab" return to a quiescent state the photon would be a packet. I could elaborate on the return to a quiescent state, but my hope is that it is obvious to you. What obviously is missing here is mass, however I do explain this in my blog. If you would like a link, pm me.

P.S.

The pair "ab" is a particle, it has dimension, spin, polarity etc.

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

I can’t make any sense of this.

[Butch]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

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

What is the spin of a graviton?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

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

The equation you have says i is not a tensor

photons have properties 

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

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

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

I can’t make any sense of this.

"I " is the measure of a tensor property.

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

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

[swansont]

35 minutes ago, Butch said:

What is the spin of a graviton?

spin 2

35 minutes ago, Butch said:

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

That’s not what I suggested.

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

35 minutes ago, Butch said:

"I " is the measure of a tensor property.

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

Not to me. See above.

35 minutes ago, Butch said:

"a" "b" and "c" are points, they have no dimension, they have one property, gravitation. They are not particles.

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

35 minutes ago, Butch said:

The interacting pair is a particle, although at this point I cannot say what particle, perhaps a neutrino? 

Same objection as before. Where does the model show that these are spin 1/2 leptons? Which family of neutrino?

[joigus]

As Swansont said:

Gravitons move at speed c (they have no rest frame).

Gravitons have spin 2.

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

I see other problems (not completely unrelated):

\( i \) seems to be an inverse length squared. But no 'internal' parameter describing a graviton can have length dimensions.

Gravitons are not sources of gravitation, but the 'messenger particles' that carry it.

Gravitons must have 'wave function' (field amplitudes) if we want them to obey quantum mechanics.

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

[Butch]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

1 hour ago, Butch said:

What is the spin of a graviton?

spin 2

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

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That’s not what I suggested.

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

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

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

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

 

26 minutes ago, joigus said:

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

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

28 minutes ago, joigus said:

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

"The currently accepted one" is a correct statement.

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

[joigus]

OK. Let's take it piecewise:

In your model, what is gravitationally coupled to what?

 

[Butch]

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

2 hours ago, swansont said:

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

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

23 minutes ago, joigus said:

OK. Let's take it piecewise:

In your model, what is gravitationally coupled to what?

 

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

Edited July 11, 2021 by Butch

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

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

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

 

1 hour ago, Butch said:

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

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

1 hour ago, Butch said:

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

And you put in their orbits, rather than the form of their interaction.

1 hour ago, Butch said:

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

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

1 hour ago, Butch said:

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

That name is taken. Use another one. 

 

[joigus]

51 minutes ago, Butch said:

In my graviton universe, everything is gravitons all with tensor relationships to all others.

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

[Butch]

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

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

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

24 minutes ago, joigus said:

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

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

 

46 minutes ago, swansont said:

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

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

 

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

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

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

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

[joigus]

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

[Butch]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

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

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

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

[joigus]

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

 

[Butch]

57 minutes ago, joigus said:

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

 

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

[Butch]

On 7/10/2021 at 9:49 PM, Butch said:

Okay, suppose the graviton is not a quanta, it has no spin, no wave function, no dimension etc. it is simply a point source of gravitation. If "a,b,c" represent gravitons and "i" is the tensor between the center of gravity of the pair "ab" and "c" then an oscillation in "i" must represent a photon. I deduce this because the scale of this system is among the smallest possible, thus the orbital period of "ab" would be very short, hence the frequency of the gravitational wave in the tensor would have a very high frequency. Once the phase difference of 180 degrees between "a" and "b" has been disturbed they would tend to return to a quiescent state of 180 degrees out of phase. The produced photon would have a wave nature and a particle nature since the wave medium is a spacial single dimension entity. Because "ab" return to a quiescent state the photon would be a packet. I could elaborate on the return to a quiescent state, but my hope is that it is obvious to you. What obviously is missing here is mass, however I do explain this in my blog. If you would like a link, pm me.

P.S.

The pair "ab" is a particle, it has dimension, spin, polarity etc.

Many other ideas are arising for me out of this first model, for example:

The pair "ab" demonstrates polarity, but what about charge? Could it be that a phase shift produces charge? There are so many ideas springing from this model, I hope some of you take an interest, I am just one old man.

While it is explained in my blog, I neglected to state it here... if the phase difference between "a" and "b" is 180 degrees, "i" does not change, however if the phase difference is other than 180 degrees "i" oscillates, please do not confuse "i" with a part of the system, it is simply a scalar value indicating the strength of the tensor "ab", "c". You can adjust the "P" slider to see the effect that a phase shift has on "i".

Also, I misrepresented "i" as a tensor, the tensor has no specific designator... The tensor is "ab", "c"...  "i" is the strength of the tensor. 

"i" also is not a photon, its oscillating value however indicates a wave in the tensor which is a photon.

I apologize. 

Edited July 12, 2021 by Butch

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Butch said:

While it is explained in my blog, I neglected to state it here... if the phase difference between "a" and "b" is 180 degrees, "i" does not change, however if the phase difference is other than 180 degrees "i" oscillates, please do not confuse "i" with a part of the system, it is simply a scalar value indicating the strength of the tensor "ab", "c". You can adjust the "P" slider to see the effect that a phase shift has on "i".

Also, I misrepresented "i" as a tensor, the tensor has no specific designator... The tensor is "ab", "c"...  "i" is the strength of the tensor. 

"i" also is not a photon, its oscillating value however indicates a wave in the tensor which is a photon.

I apologize. 

Can you write down the tensor for us?

 

[Butch]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Can you write down the tensor for us?

 

I can include a torsion vector in my model relative to "i", it will of course be a scalar.

 

Edited July 12, 2021 by Butch

[Butch]

Wow, very interesting Swan! I am working on the torsion model, it occurs to me that with that, a transformation in frame is possible that results in a constant phase imbalance... EM! 

Thank you sir!

With a quantum charge unit the rest fall in place!

Gonna be a lot of work though...

Edited July 12, 2021 by Butch

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

I can include a torsion vector in my model relative to I, it will of course be a scalar.

There is no torsion in 2D. You can only have 1 curvature, and no torsion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_of_a_curve

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenet–Serret_formulas

In 4D you have even more.

[Butch]

7 minutes ago, joigus said:

There is no torsion in 2D. You can only have 1 curvature, and no torsion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_of_a_curve

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenet–Serret_formulas

In 4D you have even more.

True, but I can create a mathematical model in 2d, curve stitching in 2d or a 3d charting app after that. I am excited that it should provide charge relatable to real world units, with that I can start to build the standard model via my "point sources of gravitation" (If I live that long).

The vector will change with "ab" that is the 3rd dimension.

I can be more succinct once I do some work on the model. Could be the coffee talking right now. Lol.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Butch

[joigus]

1 minute ago, Butch said:

with that I can start to build the standard model via my "point sources of gravitation" (If I live that long).

Good luck with that:

Quote

Parameters of the Standard Model
#	Symbol	Description	Renormalization scheme (point)	Value
1	me	Electron mass		0.511 MeV
2	mμ	Muon mass		105.7 MeV
3	mτ	Tau mass		1.78 GeV
4	mu	Up quark mass	μMS = 2 GeV	1.9 MeV
5	md	Down quark mass	μMS = 2 GeV	4.4 MeV
6	ms	Strange quark mass	μMS = 2 GeV	87 MeV
7	mc	Charm quark mass	μMS = mc	1.32 GeV
8	mb	Bottom quark mass	μMS = mb	4.24 GeV
9	mt	Top quark mass	On shell scheme	173.5 GeV
10	θ12	CKM 12-mixing angle		13.1°
11	θ23	CKM 23-mixing angle		2.4°
12	θ13	CKM 13-mixing angle		0.2°
13	δ	CKM CP violation Phase		0.995
14	g1 or g'	U(1) gauge coupling	μMS = mZ	0.357
15	g2 or g	SU(2) gauge coupling	μMS = mZ	0.652
16	g3 or gs	SU(3) gauge coupling	μMS = mZ	1.221
17	θQCD	QCD vacuum angle		~0
18	v	Higgs vacuum expectation value		246 GeV
19	mH	Higgs mass		125.09±0.24 GeV

There are 19 free parameters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#Construction_of_the_Standard_Model_Lagrangian

I applaud your optimism.

PS: None of those include gravity, by the way. Plus the standing problem of hierarchies. Sounds like you have no idea what you're up against, honest.

There's a (panoply of) reason(s) why revolutions in science are so hard to come by.

[Butch]

5 minutes ago, joigus said:

Good luck with that:

There are 19 free parameters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#Construction_of_the_Standard_Model_Lagrangian

I applaud your optimism.

Thanks, I know it is a huge task... my hope is that I will not be alone and the work will outlive me. You see, this hypothesis begins at the threshold of existence and the work extends to the limits of physics...