What is "i"?

[Butch]

4 hours ago, joigus said:

Deviations from Kepler's laws for Mercury are due to 1r3 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.

Thank you for clarifying... another curious thing about the pair "ab":

Within the system "ab" time and gravity have an interesting relationship... such that no matter the eccentricity of the orbits to an outside observer, the shape of the orbits to an inside observer would be perfectly circular.

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

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.

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

 

My points are point sources of gravitation, they are individually massless, however in a universe of them they appear massive because of the tensor field that binds them in a cosmic gel, whose density is dependant upon the field strength of the combination of tensors. (Feel free to clarify my language in accepted terms, I apologise for my lack of diction.)

[joigus]

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

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

 

Yeah. Sorry. Right. Here's the correct statement: Only left handed electrons couple to the weak force. Same happens to quarks. So left and right handed electrons (and quarks) are treated as different particles in the standard model. It's neutrinos that exist only in left-handed version. I think I got it right now.

Thank you, Swansont.

[Butch]

22 minutes ago, joigus said:

Yeah. Sorry. Right. Here's the correct statement: Only left handed electrons couple to the weak force. Same happens to quarks. So left and right handed electrons (and quarks) are treated as different particles in the standard model. It's neutrinos that exist only in left-handed version. I think I got it right now.

Thank you, Swansont.

Some info please? Left and right handed description... what is the perpendicular axis?

[Butch]

Nvrmnd... up and down spin is what you are referring to?

[joigus]

3 hours ago, Butch said:

Nvrmnd... up and down spin is what you are referring to?

No, spin in the direction of motion more like. Although not exactly. There is a property of an elementary particle called helicity. It is the (normalised) projection of spin in the direction of momentum.

\[ \lambda=\frac{\boldsymbol{S}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}}{\left|\boldsymbol{S}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}\right|} \]

When studying massive spin-1/2 particles, one introduces another similar quantity that has to do with handedness. It's called chirality, and only in the limit of v-->c (approaching the speed of light) both observables coincide. Chirality is a bit more subtle. It has to do with handedness (whether you have a given 'right' version of the particle or its mirror image). It's made up of so-called gamma matrices from the Dirac equation.

Edited July 14, 2021 by joigus

[Butch]

9 minutes ago, joigus said:

No, spin in the direction of motion more like. Although not exactly. There is a property of an elementary particle called helicity. It is the (normalised) projection of spin in the direction of momentum.

 

λ=S⋅p|S⋅p|

 

When studying massive spin-1/2 particles, one introduces another similar quantity that has to do with handedness. It's called chirality, and only in the limit of v-->c (approaching the speed of light) both observables coincide. Chirality is a bit more subtle. It has to do with handedness (whether you have a given 'right' version of the particle or its mirror image). It's made up of so-called gamma matrices from the Dirac equation.

Thank you. Have you investigated my model with regards to the area inside the "ab" pair? It is rather interesting.

I wish I knew of a good 3d gravitational modeling app, so I could study my entities in relative motion.

Edited July 14, 2021 by Butch

[joigus]

9 minutes ago, joigus said:

When studying massive spin-1/2 particles, one introduces another similar quantity that has to do with handedness.

Massive or non-massive. It's just that we don't know of any spin-1/2 massless particles.

Think of helicity and chirality as elementary-particle versions of the property of a corkscrew: Normal corkscrews are right-handed; if you rotate it in the clockwise direction, it goes downwards. Left-handed particles are like the corkscrew that you see in the mirror.

17 minutes ago, Butch said:

Have you investigated my model with regards to the area inside the "ab" pair?

The area per unit time swept by the line joining a and b is the angular momentum per unit mass, and it's conserved (Kepler's second law). No mystery there, I guess. 

[Butch]

Other than the spin issue, the point of conjecture with my model is that my entities are not carriers of the gravitational field, however they are the producers of that field... my model is simple, but consider a universe where my entities are the single primal constituents of all matter... a universe abounding with them in different configurations that result in the less primal constituents that we are aware of. The multitude of gravitational tensors would form for all intents and purposes a continuous gravitational field. I that so far fetched?

4 minutes ago, joigus said:

Massive or non-massive. It's just that we don't know of any spin-1/2 massless particles.

Think of helicity and chirality as elementary-particle versions of the property of a corkscrew: Normal corkscrews are right-handed; if you rotate it in the clockwise direction, it goes downwards. Left-handed particles are like the corkscrew that you see in the mirror.

The area per unit time swept by the line joining a and b is the angular momentum per unit mass, and it's conserved (Kepler's second law). No mystery there, I guess. 

What about time dilation? No mystery, but if you give it a moment of thought, quite interesting! Remember gravity at these single points is absolute... I hesitate to say infinite, because at the single point there is no relativity and if 2 occupy the same place with equal moments (I know... no mass) they would not be two.

Edited July 14, 2021 by Butch

[joigus]

You keep saying tensor...

It's not like the 10th time you say 'tensor' it becomes one.

OK. I'm tired. Maybe tomorrow.

[Butch]

9 minutes ago, joigus said:

You keep saying tensor...

It's not like the 10th time you say 'tensor' it becomes one.

OK. I'm tired. Maybe tomorrow.

Perhaps influence vector is a better term for now.

Thank you.

Edited July 14, 2021 by Butch

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Butch said:

Perhaps influence vector is a better term for now.

Thank you.

Is it a vector, though?

11 hours ago, Butch said:

Other than the spin issue, the point of conjecture with my model is that my entities are not carriers of the gravitational field, however they are the producers of that field... my model is simple, but consider a universe where my entities are the single primal constituents of all matter... a universe abounding with them in different configurations that result in the less primal constituents that we are aware of. The multitude of gravitational tensors would form for all intents and purposes a continuous gravitational field. I that so far fetched?

So why is the gravity from a more massive particle larger? Why do your particles congregate where we have matter? Or photons?

How can they travel with photons unless they are massless, but if they are massless they travel at c, so how can they be a part of matter?

 

[Butch]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Is it a vector, though?

So why is the gravity from a more massive particle larger? Why do your particles congregate where we have matter? Or photons?

How can they travel with photons unless they are massless, but if they are massless they travel at c, so how can they be a part of matter?

 

A more massive particle would be composed of a greater number of these entities, remember they are single points... only an interacting system of them has dimension. They travel at a speed determined by the "i" of every other of my entities in the entire universe. The apparent mass is also determined by the same. They do not congregate where we have mass or photons... they are the most primal entities of our universe, they lie at the threshold of existence, they are all that our universe is.

They are not particles, they have no dimension, no spin, no wave function, only apparent mass... and gravitation. Influence one and you influence all.

And yes, an interacting system ("ab") has polarity, spin and wave function (when nudged, producing photons). I believe a more complex model would demonstrate that the "influence vectors" are tensors.

But what is "ab"? It is the most primitive system that can be built with my entities... is it a neutrino? An electron? I do not know at this point. "I" may never know... 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Butch

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Butch said:

A more massive particle would be composed of a greater number of these entities, remember they are single points... only an interacting system of them has dimension. They travel at a speed determined by the "i" of every other of my entities in the entire universe. The apparent mass is also determined by the same. They do not congregate where we have mass or photons... they are the most primal entities of our universe, they lie at the threshold of existence, they are all that our universe is.

If they are the source of gravity and gravity is stronger where we have mass, how can it be that they don't congregate where we have mass?

 

Quote

They are not particles, they have no dimension, no spin, no wave function, only apparent mass... and gravitation. Influence one and you influence all.

Influence...how? They move, according to your animation? Is this because they interact with each other? Is that a gravitational interaction?

Do they interact with matter, other than gravitationally?

Quote

And yes, an interacting system ("ab") has polarity, spin and wave function (when nudged, producing photons). I believe a more complex model would demonstrate that the "influence vectors" are tensors.

How would they produce photons, which have energy? How do you "nudge" them?

 

Quote

 But what is "ab"? It is the most primitive system that can be built with my entities... is it a neutrino? An electron? I do not know at this point. "I" may never know... 

So far as we know, neutrinos and electrons have no structure. They are also both spin 1/2, so you would have to explain how the spin arises from this. One of them has charge. Where does that come from? 

[Butch]

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

If they are the source of gravity and gravity is stronger where we have mass, how can it be that they don't congregate where we have mass?

They are the source of mass, mass is the overall influence of all of them. They are THE constituents of the universe.

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

Influence...how? They move, according to your animation? Is this because they interact with each other? Is that a gravitational interaction?

Do they interact with matter, other than gravitationally?

The motion of each individual is a consensus of the influence of all upon each.

They are the only constituents of all matter. The influence vectors collectively is the gravitational field, mass is here, dimension, spin even polarity... what is missing is charge. I have a vague idea on that one, as systems of my entities have motion relative to each other a system such as "ab" may have a persistent phase shift via framing and that might be the charge of the system... I am looking for the tools I need to investigate this idea, perhaps because my mathematical proficiency is not great enough to do so, without such tools, if you would like to help... greatly appreciated.

Spin is rather difficult to explain and grasp... I will work on it. In the meantime, the spin is not apparent within a system, but rather as a result of the systems influence on the rest of the members in the universe.

To grasp this idea consider a universe consisting of nothing but the influence vectors (a countable infinity perhaps) and my entities being nodes of convergence of these influence vectors.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Butch said:

They are the source of mass, mass is the overall influence of all of them. They are THE constituents of the universe.

We already have the Higgs. That's been predicted theoretically and verified experimentally.

 

Quote

The motion of each individual is a consensus of the influence of all upon each.

That's twaddle.

Is there a mathematical solution for the motion of these points?  Why do they move? What is the nature of their interaction with each other? Is it an existing interaction, or a new one?

 

Quote

They are the only constituents of all matter. The influence vectors collectively is the gravitational field, mass is here, dimension, spin even polarity... what is missing is charge. I have a vague idea on that one, as systems of my entities have motion relative to each other a system such as "ab" may have a persistent phase shift via framing and that might be the charge of the system... I am looking for the tools I need to investigate this idea, perhaps because my mathematical proficiency is not great enough to do so, without such tools, if you would like to help... greatly appreciated.

Doing the math is most of the work, and it is, IMO, a fool's errand when you can't explain your idea using physics language.

 

Quote

Spin is rather difficult to explain and grasp... I will work on it. In the meantime, the spin is not apparent within a system, but rather as a result of the systems influence on the rest of the members in the universe.

Does your idea work with, say, two points? 

Quote

To grasp this idea consider a universe consisting of nothing but the influence vectors (a countable infinity perhaps) and my entities being nodes of convergence of these influence vectors.

"nodes of convergence"? More twaddle. What is converging? 

[Butch]

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

We already have the Higgs. That's been predicted theoretically and verified experimentally

Yes, and I followed with great interest... then it was discovered that it had colors... imo then it has underlying structure, the most primal entity cannot have multiple expressions, only a combination of those entities.

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, Butch said:

Yes, and I followed with great interest... then it was discovered that it had colors

Citation?

 

5 minutes ago, Butch said:

... imo then it has underlying structure, the most primal entity cannot have multiple expressions, only a combination of those entities.

CItation?

 

[Butch]

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

Is there a mathematical solution for the motion of these points?  Why do they move? What is the nature of their interaction with each other? Is it an existing interaction, or a new one?

It is the collection of all of them influencing every other, a cosmic gel constantly seeking quiescent. It is solely a gravitational interaction which produces every other... What we perceive as different types of interactions, different types of fields etc. are manifestations of these interactions. I am working on a model today to demonstrate one facet of this, I should have it complete by tomorrow.

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

Does your idea work with, say, two points? 

My idea encompasses the universe in its entirety, my model is local. My model is not perfectly accurate, because I cannot encompass infinity or the vast finite. I will be producing more models.

Edited July 15, 2021 by Butch

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, Butch said:

It is solely a gravitational interaction which produces every other.

What does the strength of this interaction, between these points, depend on?

What does the strength of this interaction, between a point and some particle of mass m, depend on?

[Butch]

40 minutes ago, swansont said:

nodes of convergence"? More twaddle. What is converging? 

The vectors of influence between each and every one of my entities, that influence is only gravitational and nothing else.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

What does the strength of this interaction, between these points, depend on?

What does the strength of this interaction, between a point and some particle of mass m, depend on?

All particles are a system of these entities, the values are scalar until they can be tied to the standard model, then we will have real units. 

My next model will demonstrate the particle and wave nature of light... if you can grasp what I am trying to communicate it will also reveal the nature of c.

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, Butch said:

All particles are a system of these entities, the values are scalar until they can be tied to the standard model, then we will have real units. 

That doesn't answer the question

What does the strength of this interaction, between these points, depend on? Even if the strength is a free parameter, you have to have variables in the equation.

When you say they are scalar, what do you mean? And what does that have to do with units? In physics terms, scalar either means it lacks a direction or the spin is zero. You need to refrain from making up new meanings for existing terms.

 

[Butch]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

If they are the source of gravity and gravity is stronger where we have mass, how can it be that they don't congregate where we have mass?

The greater the mass, the greater the number of my entities constitute that mass.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

That doesn't answer the question

What does the strength of this interaction, between these points, depend on? Even if the strength is a free parameter, you have to have variables in the equation.

The strength of the entities does not vary, it is absolute and the same for all, I do not say it is infinite because the entity is a single point, gravitational influence is only evident as is relative to other such entities.

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, Butch said:

The greater the mass, the greater the number of my entities constitute that mass.

But you said they don’t congregate there. Now you say they do. Why do they? Gravitational attraction? What is the mathematical form of this attraction? What does it depend on?

Are you just unwilling to share these details, or do you not actually have these details?

[Butch]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

But you said they don’t congregate there. Now you say they do. Why do they? Gravitational attraction? What is the mathematical form of this attraction? What does it depend on?

Are you just unwilling to share these details, or do you not actually have these details?

The part you are not getting is that any mass is composed of these entities.

I stand corrected in the use of scalar... the values used are relative, I have no defined units to work with yet.

The mathematical form is the inverse square, with of course time dialation... not expressed in my simple 2 dimensional model, it is worth noting however that within the system "ab" gravitation is very strong and time dilation is propotianate.

They do not congregate anywhere, they are where they are and where they will go is determined by the collective of all these entities in the universe.

Let me repeat, these entities compose everything that is the universe, they are the most primal possible a point source of gravity, nothing more.

A note, all I sought to introduce here is that a small enough system of gravitational entities could produce gravitational waves at light frequencies... most of the questions you have put to me I have already considered. Grandiose as they seem, I have simply begun my exploration at one end of the span of possible physics... the micro end. The entities I have presented are the most primal I could devise. They have no dimension, no spin, no mass, no energy, no charge, no polarity. All of that is in how they relate via gravitation. The model I have presented is nearly the simplest possible configuration... the pair "ab" being the simplest. I wish to build upon that, next I would endeavor to discover the manifestation of charge and EM. But first it is most important to me that you grasp this concept. I ill build a model with slightly more complexity for that purpose. Do not ask what the configuration is for any of the standard model components... I simply do not know at this point, with the exception of the photon, I believe I have that and will provide a better demonstration in my next model.

Edited July 15, 2021 by Butch

[Butch]

In the above, nearly should be merely... autocorrect