What is "i"?

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, joigus said:

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

One being that if you change one part of physics, it affects so much elsewhere in physics. And all of it has to work. So if you are ignorant of those other parts, you will have no idea how many ways your idea is wrong.

Taking the blinders off means learning more (much more) of physics.

[Butch]

17 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.

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.

We are up against, really all my hypothesis is, reduces to a different starting point for exploration... If I am wrong I will very quickly reach a dead end. (Please do not jump to the conclusion that you know what that dead end is). If that happens... fine, I can rest... We can rest.

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

One being that if you change one part of physics, it affects so much elsewhere in physics. And all of it has to work. So if you are ignorant of those other parts, you will have no idea how many ways your idea is wrong.

Taking the blinders off means learning more (much more) of physics.

I am not looking to change physics, it is my hope that my hypothesis at some point finds a meshing point and we will have the micro end of physics solved. 

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, Butch said:

I am not looking to change physics, it is my hope that my hypothesis at some point finds a meshing point and we will have the micro end of physics solved. 

You still need to know the physics you are trying to mesh with.

[Butch]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

You still need to know the physics you are trying to mesh with.

That is why I am so thankful for the help I receive on this forum. If you read my blog you will see that I clearly state that my hypothesis is an excursion of abstraction. 

The abstract mind opens doors, the math of physics brings understanding of what lies within... or closes the door.

[joigus]

33 minutes ago, swansont said:

So if you are ignorant of those other parts, you will have no idea how many ways your idea is wrong.

(My emphasis.) Taking up on this, your idea; dear @Butch; should be able to mesh with (at the very least):

1) Quantum mechanics

2) General relativity

as it's presented as a model for gravity at a more fundamental level than the one we have. None of these criteria seems to be met from what I've seen.

37 minutes ago, Butch said:

it is my hope that my hypothesis at some point finds a meshing point and we will have the micro end of physics solved. 

(My emphasis.)

It's the other way. The meshing point should be the starting point, which is at the core, I think, of Swansont's last statements here.

It's definitely not: Hey, this looks right in my mind; somehow some day it will click with everything else. What are the chances of getting it right this way?

It's the other way. And believe me I just want to be helpful. If you see someone starting out from an obvious mistake, you try to tell them.

[Butch]

2 hours 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.

I can appreciate your statement after playing with my model... as it is, it has no torque, to demonstrate torque I will need to build a model in 3d. Hopefully I can find an app that has sliders as in desmos... Swan has asked for a written tensor, however to have any meaning it will have to be dynamic, I need to be able to manipulate the model to observe the effect on the torque also the effect on phase.

39 minutes ago, joigus said:

(My emphasis.) Taking up on this, your idea; dear @Butch; should be able to mesh with (at the very least):

1) Quantum mechanics

2) General relativity

as it's presented as a model for gravity at a more fundamental level than the one we have. None of these criteria seems to be met from what I've seen.

(My emphasis.)

It's the other way. The meshing point should be the starting point, which is at the core, I think, of Swansont's last statements here.

It's definitely not: Hey, this looks right in my mind; somehow some day it will click with everything else. What are the chances of getting it right this way?

It's the other way. And believe me I just want to be helpful. If you see someone starting out from an obvious mistake, you try to tell them.

My starting point is not arbitrary.

It is not a model of gravity, rather it is an application of gravity. I am not trying to redefine physics, I am just exploring from a different point of origin than our station in the universe.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Butch

[joigus]

7 minutes ago, Butch said:

I can appreciate your statement after playing with my model... as it is, it has no torque, to demonstrate torque I will need to build a model in 3d. Hopefully I can find an app that has sliders as in desmos... Swan has asked for a written tensor, however to have any meaning it will have to be dynamic, I need to be able to manipulate the model to observe the effect on the torque also the effect on phase.

I think you're confusing torque with torsion. A two-body gravitationally-bound system has no torque, as the torque is the rate of change of angular momentum, and angular momentum is conserved in a gravitational problem --leaving aside tidal forces. Internal forces are collinear with distance between particles ==> no internal torque. There are no external torques either.

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

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, Butch said:

It is not a model of gravity, rather it is an application of gravity.

Where does gravity show up in your model's equations?

[Butch]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

I think you're confusing torque with torsion. A two-body gravitationally-bound system has no torque, as the torque is the rate of change of angular momentum, and angular momentum is conserved in a gravitational problem --leaving aside tidal forces. Internal forces are collinear with distance between particles ==> no internal torque. There are no external torques either.

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

You are absolutely correct... fatigue is in charge now... time for rest.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Where does gravity show up in your model's equations?

"abc" are points of equal gravitation, the model is scalar until I can match systems to observed entities. If you have any ideas on direction, I would appreciate your input. My thinking at this point is that I need to relate this first model to another entity to "flesh out" the tensors and observe how frame shift affects the phase of "ab", EM might be evident there. I know the math to use, but do not have a great deal of practice with it(vector transforms) especially in regards to Desmos.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Where does gravity show up in your model's equations?

"abc" are points of equal gravitation, the model is scalar until I can match systems to observed entities. If you have any ideas on direction, I would appreciate your input. My thinking at this point is that I need to relate this first model to another entity to "flesh out" the tensors and observe how frame shift affects the phase of "ab", EM might be evident there. I know the math to use, but do not have a great deal of practice with it(vector transforms) especially in regards to Desmos.

All my model shows at this point is that if "ab" are other than 180 degrees out of phase a gravitational wave is felt by "c", if the entities are ultimately primal, the gravitational waves would be extremely high frequency, hence a photon might be a very high frequency gravitational wave.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Butch

[joigus]

39 minutes ago, Butch said:

fatigue is in charge now... time for rest.

It's only fair. I'll leave you with a picture of the recipe of known physics (except gravitation). It's the short version:

Gravitation is the piece that's missing in there.

[Tema]

It is hard to follow so complex dialogue.

 

What is t he endthesis of this problem?

 

And can from Carboneum conclude what is life? If not, what is the contrathesis and syllogism? And best theory answer?

[Butch]

20 hours ago, joigus said:

It's only fair. I'll leave you with a picture of the recipe of known physics (except gravitation). It's the short version:

Gravitation is the piece that's missing in there.

It is missing because it is a part of physics that we can detect and measure, its nature is understood... however it is not a relative entity when isolated. Let me clarify, EM is self relating, positive is relative to negative, north relative to South etc. 

Mass and gravity are not self relating, (I cover this in my blog). Why is the speed of light what it is? We can say it has to be something... but that is not exactly true, why couldn't it have instantaneous transmission. The answers lie in what we can never observe, with the exception of what we observe with the minds eye. For my hypothesis I traveled to the most primal spot the mind can conceive of, the very threshold of existence. Read my blog, perhaps rather than critiquing my hypothesis, critique my thoughts.  I do greatly appreciate such. I try not to agree or disagree with such critique, but rather I let it prod me on.

Check this, if a non interfering observer were to measure the orbital paths of "ab" from inside the system, what shape would the orbits take?

3 hours ago, Tema said:

It is hard to follow so complex dialogue.

 

What is t he endthesis of this problem?

 

And can from Carboneum conclude what is life? If not, what is the contrathesis and syllogism? And best theory answer?

My friend, this dialog is not very complicated at all.

As to the end thesis, the model simply shows that 2 interacting point sources of gravitation in a system of appropriate size could generate a gravitational wave at light frequencies.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

I cover this in my blog

!

Moderator Note

Please stop doing this; it is irrelevant. Topics for discussion here need to be posted here. Posts that suggest people should go visit your blog are expressly forbidden in the rules.

 

[John Cuthber]

23 hours ago, joigus said:

It's only fair. I'll leave you with a picture of the recipe of known physics (except gravitation). It's the short version:

Gravitation is the piece that's missing in there.

Is it just me or...
https://dilbert.com/strip/1992-08-03

 

[joigus]

53 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Is it just me or...
https://dilbert.com/strip/1992-08-03

LOL. Cm'on. No Inca monkey gods there. It's the standard model Lagrangian. And OP said he wanted his model to be the starting point to explain all of physics, including the standard model. Nature is messier than we sometimes want to believe.

[Butch]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Please stop doing this; it is irrelevant. Topics for discussion here need to be posted here. Posts that suggest people should go visit your blog are expressly forbidden in the rules.

 

Understood.

3 hours ago, joigus said:

LOL. Cm'on. No Inca monkey gods there. It's the standard model Lagrangian. And OP said he wanted his model to be the starting point to explain all of physics, including the standard model. Nature is messier than we sometimes want to believe.

What I want is to investigate the model to see if it will mesh with the standard model, the purpose being as stated in the very first part of my blog:

Science particularly physics, has sought to understand our universe via the micro and macro from our station within it. 

 The "observable" universe has grown as we find tools with which to observe it, however no matter how sophisticated our tools, they are limited and will never successfully observe all that is the universe, that is with the exception of one tool... the mind. We can envision things with the mind that can never be observed otherwise, it was Albert Einsteins mind experiments that brought us "Special Relativity" and released the energy of the atom.

We are at the point of atom smashing to investigate Higgs... how much further can our tools take us? Going to extremes via the minds eye and building back to see if the spans meet, may be the only tools we have in the near future, thus at least at some point it is a valid tool for exploration.

[joigus]

6 hours ago, Butch said:

Going to extremes via the minds eye and building back to see if the spans meet, may be the only tools we have in the near future, thus at least at some point it is a valid tool for exploration.

Again, I applaud your enthusiasm. But science is tightly constrained by observation. It's not just about opening your mind's eye. It's about doing that while keeping an eye on observational data.

Here's a list of features you haven't contemplated (not meant to be complete):

We know all massive particles to be chiral (they have handedness). All electrons in the universe are left handed. Composite particles are coupled by chromodynamic forces and decay by electroweak forces. Hadrons, e.g., (strongly interacting particles) cannot split apart into quarks, but by forming other hadrons. But they're free at short distances! This is due to forces that look nothing like gravity.

On the other hand, your model doesn't even capture many of the properties of gravity that we know already, like gravitational lensing, or deviation from Newton's law at strong fields ('violation' of Newtonian centrifugal barriers), or black holes. All the features coming from GR.

[joigus]

I'm not sure your model explains Newtonian gravity either. You haven't told us much about it.

[Butch]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

I'm not sure your model explains Newtonian gravity either. You haven't told us much about it.

It was never meant to "explain" gravity, explaining gravity would be akin to explaining the speed of light, light speed might however be explained at some point by investigation of more complex models evolved from this one. Gravity however is in my opinion the most primal of forces and we will have to accept that it just is. This model was created as a result of my thoughts on what the most primal constituent of our universe might be, a view from one end of the micro/macro rather than someplace in between. The current scientific methods of observation, give us good solid evidence of what our universe is, but what is to be done when our tools to observe are exhausted? The Higgs is not the most primal constituent, it has multiple properties, it has multiple states... it has then underlying structure. We could build an accelerator the size of the galaxy(of course none of us would live long enough to execute a single event) and still not find the evidence we can propose with our minds eye. Is this a valid avenue of exploration? Einstein used it very successfuly.

[joigus]

12 minutes ago, Butch said:

Gravity however is in my opinion the most primal of forces

Gravity is not a force (at least not on an equal status with the other forces):

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33875/gravitation-is-not-force

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-illusion-of-gravity-2007-04/

Gravity is dimensionally exceptional, which makes it unwieldy to quantisation. Gravity is entropic. Gravity can be coded into the geometric properties of space time so that it locally 'disappears'. I don't think it's the most primal of forces. It's a very different animal.

[Butch]

7 hours ago, joigus said:

Again, I applaud your enthusiasm. But science is tightly constrained by observation. It's not just about opening your mind's eye. It's about doing that while keeping an eye on observational data.

Here's a list of features you haven't contemplated (not meant to be complete):

We know all massive particles to be chiral (they have handedness). All electrons in the universe are left handed. Composite particles are coupled by chromodynamic forces and decay by electroweak forces. Hadrons, e.g., (strongly interacting particles) cannot split apart into quarks, but by forming other hadrons. But they're free at short distances! This is due to forces that look nothing like gravity.

On the other hand, your model doesn't even capture many of the properties of gravity that we know already, like gravitational lensing, or deviation from Newton's law at strong fields ('violation' of Newtonian centrifugal barriers), or black holes. All the features coming from GR.

You are on the precipice of understanding my model... my entities are single points of gravitational force and nothing else, however they must be relative to exist. Taken alone a simple plot of the inverse square demonstrates that at any distance g falls to zero, however relative to another such entity at any distance g never falls to zero.

Forget about the photon thing for a moment and consider "a" alone and then in relation to "b".

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

Gravity is not a force (at least not on an equal status with the other forces):

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33875/gravitation-is-not-force

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-illusion-of-gravity-2007-04/

Gravity is dimensionally exceptional, which makes it unwieldy to quantisation. Gravity is entropic. Gravity can be coded into the geometric properties of space time so that it locally 'disappears'. I don't think it's the most primal of forces. It's a very different animal.

I agree that it is a very different animal, however consider this... If you wanted to find the most primal constituent entity of our universe, that which lies at the very cusp of existence... what properties might it have.

[joigus]

16 minutes ago, Butch said:

You are on the precipice of understanding my model... my entities are single points of gravitational force and nothing else, however they must be relative to exist. Taken alone a simple plot of the inverse square demonstrates that at any distance g falls to zero, however relative to another such entity at any distance g never falls to zero.

Forget about the photon thing for a moment and consider "a" alone and then in relation to "b".

I agree that it is a very different animal, however consider this... If you wanted to find the most primal constituent entity of our universe, that which lies at the very cusp of existence... what properties might it have.

Gravity is an inverse-square law only in the weak-field approximation.

[Butch]

1 minute ago, joigus said:

Gravity is an inverse-square law only in the weak-field approximation.

Gravity diminishes with distance, without relativity it is exactly nothing.

[joigus]

6 minutes ago, Butch said:

Gravity diminishes with distance, without relativity it is exactly nothing.

Deviations from Kepler's laws for Mercury are due to \( \frac{1}{r^3} \) terms. Gravity is very different from Coulomb's law at strong fields.

The right statement would be: gravity with general relativity, locally, is no force at all.

Edited July 14, 2021 by joigus
minor stylistic correction

[swansont]

11 hours ago, joigus said:

All electrons in the universe are left handed.

You mean neutrinos, right? (They were thought to be, but AFAIK the fact that they have mass means this isn’t exclusive.)

https://neutrinos.fnal.gov/mysteries/handedness/

neutrinos turn out to be an anomaly. Other particles such as the quarks and the other three leptons (the electron, muon, and tau) have both left-handed and right-handed versions of both the matter particle and their antimatter partner.

4 hours ago, Butch said:

my entities are single points of gravitational force and nothing else

I have no idea what you mean by this. In your model they are points rotating. Nothing inherently gravitational. No interaction is described.