Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Introducing graviton, which decay at to less than Planck's time to gravitation waves which becomes template upon which spacetime curvature forms, merging Einstein field equations parameters and interpreting that using Schrodinger equation, can this leads to quantification of gravity? have a look  at the following diagrams.

graviton.jpg

Spacetime fabric curvature.jpg

General relativity quantum mechanics hag..jpg

The diagrams have been used for illustration purposes to outline the concept-from the diagram graviton wave function illustrated envelopes elementary particles in this case  case-down quark. Once Higgs field is saturated a standing wave is formed that forms graviton that immediately decay to gravitation waves.

As elementary particles aggregate the standing wave interferes additively increasing. its magnitude corresponding to increase in mass.

Posted
2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

merging Einstein field equations parameters

What are the Einstein field equation parameters?

Posted
48 minutes ago, Genady said:

What are the Einstein field equation parameters?

Rather components of EFE. Einstein tensor,metric tensor and stress-energy tensor.

Posted
2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

spacetime curvature forms, merging Einstein field equations parameters

 

2 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Rather components of EFE. Einstein tensor,metric tensor and stress-energy tensor.

IOW, spacetime curvature merges the components of EFE? But spacetime curvature is one of these components. Are you saying that one component merges all other components into itself?

Posted
42 minutes ago, Genady said:

Are you saying that one component merges all other components into itself?

A component from graviton decay (gravitation wave) becomes a template upon which EFE components merges.

Explaining effectively spacetime curvature from a local point ( quantum level) to a global level ( universal)

Background virtual particles are spacetime particles-opted to use virtual because they are Soo tiny and are released by every particles...they form part of everything.

Posted
31 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

EFE components merges

But if components of an equation merge, there is no equation. Any equation requires at least two components, like A = B. If they all merge, you are left with A, which is not an equation.

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Introducing graviton, which decay at to less than Planck's time to gravitation waves which becomes template upon which spacetime curvature forms, merging Einstein field equations parameters and interpreting that using Schrodinger equation, can this leads to quantification of gravity? have a look  at the following diagrams.

graviton.jpg

Spacetime fabric curvature.jpg

General relativity quantum mechanics hag..jpg

The diagrams have been used for illustration purposes to outline the concept-from the diagram graviton wave function illustrated envelopes elementary particles in this case  case-down quark. Once Higgs field is saturated a standing wave is formed that forms graviton that immediately decay to gravitation waves.

As elementary particles aggregate the standing wave interferes additively increasing. its magnitude corresponding to increase in mass.

Assuming the existence of a graviton, which isn't a new idea. You can find examples including string theory and SO(10) MSSM. In both cases you would have a unified field oft termed supergravity. That part of your post is viable.  However even with the unified force the spacetime curvature will globally be zero with the stress energy momentum term being zero. Under QM and QFT you will still have the quantum harmonic oscillator. 

 Now curvature actually refers to the geodesic paths that particles will follow so in this case all particle paths are not undergoing any form of acceleration.in essence a freefall state where there is no force acting upon their paths.

 Once you get anistropy due to the previous harmonic oscillations then things get interesting in so far as that unified force could potentially act upon particle paths.

 However I should note the other do exist at all times but are in a condition called thermal equilibrium which is a symmetric state. Electroweak symmetry breaking occurs a little later once the universe due to  inflation/expansion allows the other forces as well as Higgs to drop out of thermal equilibrium.

 

23 minutes ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

@Bufofrog

How's the new edit. Hard to say its any promotion 

!

Moderator Note

Any member can remind another member of a site forum rule. Personal pet theories is a rules violation when replying to other forum members posts. Any member may also also report a rules violation to the moderator staff as a corrective action

 
Edited by Mordred
Posted
5 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

 that using Schrodinger equation, can this leads to quantification of gravity? 

 

Just an FYI Schrodingers equation doesn't work well in field theories. Hence QFT uses the Klein Gordon equation where the operators of QM position and momentum have been replaced with field and momentum by using the potential energy of the field and the kinetic energy of the particles momentum.  In essence it works well for Lorentz invariance of SR.

Posted
2 hours ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

@MJ kihara

 

Good stuff, but... you are holding yourself back like 99% people still. Quantum Gravity and all ideas are all 1960s stalemate thinking. Outdated. 

New diagram

 

c85b0e58-583e-49bb-8480-02cfdd12a0f7_3394x1495.thumb.jpg.20fb8f90b7890182b1d4911bd34e3c94.jpg

 

Gravity is a elemental matter. Gravity itself is the creation itself. 

Gravity is a open and closed system that can be open to the ground state. Extracted and harvested for potential energy. 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

Isn't String theory and QFT and all the stalemate ideas are all pet theories. String theory is one of the biggest pet theories of all times, yet people throw it around as it's not a pet, because of money, completely prove nothing and has not shipped a product for over 30+ years 😒 

1960s stalemate sadly. 

 

1 hour ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

@Phi for All

It's all good my buddy.

Trash it 😀  and end discontinued the thread ️ 

Substack has explained the mission to trash all 1960s ideas. And move along to next sites. 

My mission has been completed 🙌 

Let it be known, prime mechanics has be published posted and established.

It could have been reasonable before you jump into conclusions to follow someone threads which are available in this forum to know the reasoning behind the diagram .... 1960 ideas were a stepping stone to get us to this point...without those ideas you go nowhere....as you were publishing the discussions were all already started taking place in this forum in relation to the diagram that I have posted.if you go deeper to following those ideas you will realise what you are trying to do are just a layer before the cores issues outlined by ideas in this and other prior threads.

Anyway we are all looking for knowledge.

Hi

3 hours ago, Genady said:

But if components of an equation merge, there is no equation. Any equation requires at least two components, like A = B. If they all merge, you are left with A, which is not an equation.

Am still trying to think about the implications of that.... however given the position of an object( e.g Earth) on orbit around massive body( e.g sun) at a particular time is certain,this might be the reason behind that.

Posted
3 hours ago, Mordred said:

Assuming the existence of a graviton, which isn't a new idea. You can find examples including string theory and SO(10) MSSM. In both cases you would have a unified field oft termed supergravity. That part of your post is viable.  However even with the unified force the spacetime curvature will globally be zero with the stress energy momentum term being zero.

The new ideas in this is the decay time of a graviton at to less that Planck's time,it forms a standing wave on elementary particles as the Higgs fields becomes saturated,therefore,it is continuously formed as it decays and that as elementary particles aggregate it entangle,have constructive interference to form a higher magnitude standing wave that decays to stronger gravitational waves corresponding to increase in Mass.

From the diagram it's clear that the magnitude of gravitation wave and corresponding curvature reduces along the metric tensor away from source of mass,therefore,as we move locally to globally the spacetime curvature and stress-energy tensor will tend to zero.

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

 Now curvature actually refers to the geodesic paths that particles will follow so in this case all particle paths are not undergoing any form of acceleration.in essence a freefall state where there is no force acting upon their paths.

In this case the surface of the wave represent the geodesic path and Hilbert space that a hypothetical object(an object that couple to gravitation field but don't manipulate it) will follow...if time to move from point A to B..( path length is increasing towards B source of mass)..is held constant along the metric tensor, the object's velocity will be increasing(as it free fall) towards the source of mass(gravitational attraction).
Therefore this becomes a freefall where time is reducing or held constant while the length is increasing towards source of mass resulting to an increase in velocity towards mass-this is classically interpreted as gravitational force of attraction.

If you Fourier transform the wave you will get a spiraling orbit towards the Mass.

 

Posted (edited)

Ok so the critical aspects to examine are as follows. First you require the geometry of the metric. No need to create one as there is plenty of available examples for a minimally coupled scalar field involving gravity. The graviton would be required to be a spin 2 boson. ( this is a direct consequence of GR spacetime metric ) any good GR textbook also covers this..

You will require a canonical perturbation method using integrals for decay rates. Which is compatible with QFT, as this is also a Lorentz invariant metric using the Klien Gordon equations of QFT.

So far so good there is previous work for the majority of the above. The decay rates for a for a graviton however will be tricky to find good examples. Any examples will also be speculative as we only have theoretical possible rates including any other properties such as mass etc.

For particle number density one can use the Bose-Einstein statistics for a spin 2 particle or alternately the creation/annihilation operators of QFT.

 So although numerous steps much of the work has existing formulas that can be employed to develop a proper model.

 As your toy modelling and not claiming to have a working model lets add some mathematics behind your theory. I will save you some time and post some of the relevant formulas to get you started. Also helps a majority of the ones I feel will work for you I already have latexed on this site so I can copy/paste the ones I feel will be useful to you.

GR section

GR line element in weak field limit

 

\[ds^2=-c^2dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}\]

FLRW metric

\[d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a({t^2})[d{r^2}+{S,k}{(r)^2}d\Omega^2]\]

Minimal gravitational couplings

\[S=\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\mathcal{L}(\Phi^i\nabla_\mu \Phi^i)\]

g is determinant

Einstein Hilbert action in the absence of matter.

\[S_H=\frac{M_{pl}^2}{2}\int d^4 x\sqrt{-g\mathbb{R}}\]

Maxwell Boltmann and Bose Einstein statistics the method is compatible with the QFT equivalent using creation/annihilation operators for particle number density to blackbody temperature relations. Although in QFT its more specifically related to the Fourier transformations via the wave equations involved in the creation/annihilation operators.

\[\frac{N_i}{N} = \frac {g_i} {e^{(\epsilon_i-\mu)/kT}} = \frac{g_i e^{-\epsilon_i/kT}}{Z}\]

\[n_i = \frac {g_i} {e^{(\varepsilon_i-\mu)/kT} - 1}\]

\[\rho_R=\frac{\pi^2}{30}{g_{*S}=\sum_{i=bosons}gi(\frac{T_i}{T})^3+\frac{7}{8}\sum_{i=fermions}gi(\frac{T_i}{T})}^3\]

decay rates related mathematics This part applies to a generalized quick guide to what is involved in decay rate calculations

Fermi's Golden Rule

\[\Gamma=\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}|V_{fi}|^2\frac{dN}{DE_f}\]

density of states

\[\langle x|\psi\rangle\propto exp(ik\cdot x)\]

with periodic boundary condition as "a"\[k_x=2\pi n/a\]

number of momentum states

\[dN=\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^2}V\]

decay rate

\[\Gamma\]

Hamilton coupling matrix element between initial and final state

\[V_{fi}\]

density of final state

\[\frac{dN}{dE_f}\]

number of particles remaining at time t (decay law)

\[\frac{dN}{dt}=-\Gamma N\]

average proper lifetime probability

\[p(t)\delta t=-\frac{1}{N}\frac{dN}{dt}\delta t=\Gamma\exp-(\Gamma t)\delta t\]

mean lifetime \[\tau=<t>=\frac{\int_0^\infty tp (t) dt}{\int_0^\infty p (t) dt}=\frac{1}{\Gamma}\]

relativistic decay rate set 

\[L_o=\beta\gamma c\tau\] average number after some distance x

\[N=N_0\exp(-x/l_0)\]

spin statistics spin 2 graviton.

you can look through this as a vast majority of the formulas are mentioned here in modelling the graviton couplings to the spacetime field

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.07571.pdf

 Hope that helps

 

 

 

Edited by Mordred
Posted (edited)

In essence what you have described thus far is feasibly sound. The article will provide much of the critical details. There are plenty of references on how a graviton would relate to gravitational potential of a field so having a higher number density as a result of gravitational waves is easily formulated with the above. As a vector gauge boson those gravitons would be off shell in essence the internal lines on a Feymann diagram. The article above also covers this.

I should add Maxwell Boltmann uses phase space this article isn't bad on it

https://ps.uci.edu/~cyu/p115A/LectureNotes/Lecture13/lecture13.pdf

Edited by Mordred
Posted
19 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Introducing graviton, which decay

Gravitons, if they exist, would be massless spin-2 particles - and as such, they would be perfectly stable and can have no decay modes. 

Posted
9 hours ago, Mordred said:

Ok so the critical aspects to examine are as follows. First you require the geometry of the metric. No need to create one as there is plenty of available examples for a minimally coupled scalar field involving gravity. The graviton would be required to be a spin 2 boson. ( this is a direct consequence of GR spacetime metric ) any good GR textbook also covers this..

You will require a canonical perturbation method using integrals for decay rates. Which is compatible with QFT, as this is also a Lorentz invariant metric using the Klien Gordon equations of QFT.

So far so good there is previous work for the majority of the above. The decay rates for a for a graviton however will be tricky to find good examples. Any examples will also be speculative as we only have theoretical possible rates including any other properties such as mass etc.

For particle number density one can use the Bose-Einstein statistics for a spin 2 particle or alternately the creation/annihilation operators of QFT.

 So although numerous steps much of the work has existing formulas that can be employed to develop a proper model.

 As your toy modelling and not claiming to have a working model lets add some mathematics behind your theory. I will save you some time and post some of the relevant formulas to get you started. Also helps a majority of the ones I feel will work for you I already have latexed on this site so I can copy/paste the ones I feel will be useful to you.

GR section

GR line element in weak field limit

 

 

ds2=c2dt2+dx2+dy2+dz2=ημνdxμdxν

 

FLRW metric

 

ds2=c2dt2+a(t2)[dr2+S,k(r)2dΩ2]

 

Minimal gravitational couplings

 

S=d4xgL(ΦiμΦi)

 

g is determinant

Einstein Hilbert action in the absence of matter.

 

SH=M2pl2d4xgR

 

Maxwell Boltmann and Bose Einstein statistics the method is compatible with the QFT equivalent using creation/annihilation operators for particle number density to blackbody temperature relations. Although in QFT its more specifically related to the Fourier transformations via the wave equations involved in the creation/annihilation operators.

 

NiN=gie(ϵiμ)/kT=gieϵi/kTZ

 

 

ni=gie(εiμ)/kT1

 

 

ρR=π230gS=i=bosonsgi(TiT)3+78i=fermionsgi(TiT)3

 

decay rates related mathematics This part applies to a generalized quick guide to what is involved in decay rate calculations

Fermi's Golden Rule

 

Γ=2π|Vfi|2dNDEf

 

density of states

 

x|ψexp(ikx)

 

with periodic boundary condition as "a"

kx=2πn/a

 

number of momentum states

 

dN=d3p(2π)2V

 

decay rate

 

Γ

 

Hamilton coupling matrix element between initial and final state

 

Vfi

 

density of final state

 

dNdEf

 

number of particles remaining at time t (decay law)

 

dNdt=ΓN

 

average proper lifetime probability

 

p(t)δt=1NdNdtδt=Γexp(Γt)δt

 

mean lifetime

τ=<t>=0tp(t)dt0p(t)dt=1Γ

 

relativistic decay rate set 

 

Lo=βγcτ

average number after some distance x

 

 

N=N0exp(x/l0)

 

spin statistics spin 2 graviton.

you can look through this as a vast majority of the formulas are mentioned here in modelling the graviton couplings to the spacetime field

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.07571.pdf

 Hope that helps

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Mordred said:

In essence what you have described thus far is feasibly sound. The article will provide much of the critical details. There are plenty of references on how a graviton would relate to gravitational potential of a field so having a higher number density as a result of gravitational waves is easily formulated with the above. As a vector gauge boson those gravitons would be off shell in essence the internal lines on a Feymann diagram. The article above also covers this.

I should add Maxwell Boltmann uses phase space this article isn't bad on it

https://ps.uci.edu/~cyu/p115A/LectureNotes/Lecture13/lecture13.pdf

Thanks.
I will consider all that....though,my mathematical background is not as such...that's why I prefer to use diagrams for illustration,if animation was available i know this concept could be more clearer.

Posted

Well if it helps The various probabilities for number density of a particle will rely on phase space which can be understood as the particle in a box images and videos. The mathematical methodology of both employ the particle states wavefunctions. this also will better help with regards to spin statistics.

Posted
2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Gravitons, if they exist, would be massless spin-2 particles - and as such, they would be perfectly stable and can have no decay modes. 

From those diagrams there are already assumptions made-spacetime fabric is made up of virtual particles (spacetime particles) which can either be stable, partially stable or unstable... partially stable or unstable oscillate within their levels of instability i.e a kind of ideal square wave signal.

Virtual particles (spacetime particle) have a minute eigen space around them.

Stable virtual particles(spacetime particles) are the ones that transist from local point to globally, therefore, essentially mediating gravity making it universal.


Virtual particles(spacetime particles) entangle through their eigen space therefore entanglement strength is directly proportional to their concentration that contribute to gravity.


Virtual particles(spacetime particles) surface dimension  deform accordingly to where it's entangled to i.e at the surface of the particle e.g quark as it is emitted.

Stable virtual particles (spacetime particle) form Higgs field when this Higgs field get saturated a  graviton is formed that decouples from elementary particle  as gravitational wave --This decoupling is the one that am referring to as decay--after decoupling they move to become part of spacetime fabric (basic framework of the universe).


As they are moving they mediate gravity and since their concentration is higher near source of mass they are highly entangled at such a point therefore, contributing to a higher pressure (i.e virtual particles-spacetime particles-pressure)...this is the cause of gravity being  analogously compared to negative pressure.

Therefore, pressure increase from point A to point B near source of mass.However as virtual particles(spacetime particles) are moving away from source of mass,to become part of basic framework of the universe, their entanglement to the mass source keep reducing  contributing to the cosmological constant that leads to the expansion of metric tensor..as indicated in the diagram...Therefore,we are having a situation whereby virtual particles(spacetime particles) are mediating gravity through entanglement via their minute eigen space while simultaneously contributing to cosmological constant,hence,universe expansion as they are moving from source mass to the universe.

About existence of graviton--it will be very difficult to detect a graviton in particle colliders machine experiments since it decays to become part of spacetime fabric....However it's expected to be found in plenty in regions of extreme pressures as found near or inside a black hole or other massive bodies....or it could be found transciently if it  were possible to synthesis microblack holes.

Posted


 

On 5/14/2023 at 7:29 PM, MJ kihara said:

Am still trying to think about the implications of that.... however given the position of an object( e.g Earth) on orbit around massive body( e.g sun) at a particular time is certain,this might be the reason behind that.

I think applying the merged EFE on gravitation wave as shown in the diagram and using that information to look for solutions following Schrodinger equations.

From Wikipedia-schrodinger equations......Writing  r {\displaystyle \mathbf {r} } \mathbf {r} for a three-dimensional position vector and p {\displaystyle \mathbf {p} } \mathbf {p} for a three-dimensional momentum vector, the position-space Schrödinger equation is

i ℏ ∂ ∂ t Ψ ( r , t ) = − ℏ 2 2 m ∇ 2 Ψ ( r , t ) + V ( r ) Ψ ( r , t ) . {\displaystyle i\hbar {\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\Psi (\mathbf {r} ,t)=-{\frac {\hbar ^{2}}{2m}}\nabla ^{2}\Psi (\mathbf {r} ,t)+V(\mathbf {r} )\Psi (\mathbf {r} ,t).}
{\displaystyle i\hbar {\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\Psi (\mathbf {r} ,t)=-{\frac {\hbar ^{2}}{2m}}\nabla ^{2}\Psi (\mathbf {r} ,t)+V(\mathbf {r} )\Psi (\mathbf {r} ,t).}

The momentum-space counterpart involves the Fourier transforms of the wave function and the potential:

i ℏ ∂ ∂ t Ψ ~ ( p , t ) = p 2 2 m Ψ ~ ( p , t ) + ( 2 π ℏ ) − 3 / 2 ∫ d 3 p ′ V ~ ( p − p ′ ) Ψ ~ ( p ′ , t ) . {\displaystyle i\hbar {\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}{\tilde {\Psi }}(\mathbf {p} ,t)={\frac {\mathbf {p} ^{2}}{2m}}{\tilde {\Psi }}(\mathbf {p} ,t)+(2\pi \hbar )^{-3/2}\int d^{3}\mathbf {p} '\,{\tilde {V}}(\mathbf {p} -\mathbf {p} '){\tilde {\Psi }}(\mathbf {p} ',t).}
{\displaystyle i\hbar {\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}{\tilde {\Psi }}(\mathbf {p} ,t)={\frac {\mathbf {p} ^{2}}{2m}}{\tilde {\Psi }}(\mathbf {p} ,t)+(2\pi \hbar )^{-3/2}\int d^{3}\mathbf {p} '\,{\tilde {V}}(\mathbf {p} -\mathbf {p} '){\tilde {\Psi }}(\mathbf {p} ',t).}

The functions Ψ ( r , t ) {\displaystyle \Psi (\mathbf {r} ,t)} \Psi (\mathbf {r} ,t) and Ψ ~ ( p , t ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {\Psi }}(\mathbf {p} ,t)} {\displaystyle {\tilde {\Psi }}(\mathbf {p} ,t)} are derived from | Ψ ( t ) 〉 {\displaystyle |\Psi (t)\rangle } |\Psi (t)\rangle by

Ψ ( r , t ) = 〈 r | Ψ ( t ) 〉 , {\displaystyle \Psi (\mathbf {r} ,t)=\langle \mathbf {r} |\Psi (t)\rangle ,}
{\displaystyle \Psi (\mathbf {r} ,t)=\langle \mathbf {r} |\Psi (t)\rangle ,}
Ψ ~ ( p , t ) = 〈 p | Ψ ( t ) 〉 , {\displaystyle {\tilde {\Psi }}(\mathbf {p} ,t)=\langle \mathbf {p} |\Psi (t)\rangle ,}
{\displaystyle {\tilde {\Psi }}(\mathbf {p} ,t)=\langle \mathbf {p} |\Psi (t)\rangle ,}

where | r 〉 {\displaystyle |\mathbf {r} \rangle } |{\mathbf  {r}}\rangle and | p 〉 {\displaystyle |\mathbf {p} \rangle } {\displaystyle |\mathbf {p} \rangle } do not belong to the Hilbert space itself, but have well-defined inner products with all elements of that space......

The best thing is that most of formulations to support this concepts have already been done.

Posted

Instead of copy pasting formulations that have already been developed,I would prefer discussing concepts that I regard original from my arguments point of view and just make a reference to any formulations where possible not to cloud this thread..esp with paste that are not clear...for the above post that's clear...Google Wikipedia Schrodinger equations- position space and momentum space.

My intention is to develop something that even a layman can interpret easily,for instance,if someone ask me about spacetime curvature and how it's related to gravity..I show that diagram...If he ask how it's related to increase in speed toward massive body I answer 

Speed=distance/time. 
 

Where distance is the arc length on wave indicating geodesic path as indicated in the diagram while time axis is fixed on the metric tensor.

 

Posted
1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

If he ask how it's related to increase in speed toward massive body I answer 

Speed=distance/time. 
 

Where distance is the arc length on wave indicating geodesic path as indicated in the diagram while time axis is fixed on the metric tensor.

This is incorrect because length of a geodesic path is proper time. So, your formula produces time over time rather than speed. 

For example, if two events occur in the same place with 1 min one after another, the length of the geodesic path is 1 min and the "speed" according to your formula is 1/1 = 1.

Posted
47 minutes ago, Genady said:

This is incorrect because length of a geodesic path is proper time. So, your formula produces time over time rather than speed. 

For example, if two events occur in the same place with 1 min one after another, the length of the geodesic path is 1 min and the "speed" according to your formula is 1/1 = 1.

In these case the freefalling object is moving from point A to point B near source of mass...it's not stationary therefore the events are not in same place....the wave surface become the geodesic path/ the world line/arc length that the object is free falling in i.e its the object orbit towards mass.

Literally distance becomes the arc length of the wave....and since near mass the frequency of gravitation wave is high the arc length will be longer.for us human this length becomes invisible but we detect it as increase in velocity.

Posted (edited)

Under GR all events are inertial. The geodesic equations include this detail.  The Euler Langranian equations are capable of handling wave equations with particle paths. The entire body of QFT incorporate that.

Edited by Mordred
Posted
4 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

In these case the freefalling object is moving from point A to point B near source of mass...it's not stationary therefore the events are not in same place....the wave surface become the geodesic path/ the world line/arc length that the object is free falling in i.e its the object orbit towards mass.

Literally distance becomes the arc length of the wave....and since near mass the frequency of gravitation wave is high the arc length will be longer.for us human this length becomes invisible but we detect it as increase in velocity.

Still doesn't work. If the body went 1 km in 1 s, the length of the geodesic is sqrt(300000^2-1) and divided by the coordinate time it gives the "speed" of about 300000 km/s.

Posted
3 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Instead of copy pasting formulations that have already been developed,I would prefer discussing concepts that I regard original from my arguments point of view and just make a reference to any formulations where possible not to cloud this thread..esp with paste that are not clear...for the above post that's clear...Google Wikipedia Schrodinger equations- position space and momentum space.

My intention is to develop something that even a layman can interpret easily,for instance,if someone ask me about spacetime curvature and how it's related to gravity..I show that diagram...If he ask how it's related to increase in speed toward massive body I answer 

Speed=distance/time. 
 

Where distance is the arc length on wave indicating geodesic path as indicated in the diagram while time axis is fixed on the metric tensor.

 


Thanks for the corrections.

 let me correct on that by dropping geodesic therefore it becomes..... indicating the path followed by the object as indicated in the diagram.....

I mean literally someone to put units of time from point B to A using metric tensor line as time axis then literally measure the arc length,then let the object to freefall from point A to B near source of mass...it's obvious that speed will be increasing towards mass, since per unit time length/distance is increasing...as indicated on the diagram.

The arc length in this case is the surface of wave that becomes world line of the object as it free fall towards mass.

Remember its simple explanation using the minimum possible detail.

Posted
3 hours ago, Genady said:

This is incorrect because length of a geodesic path is proper time. So, your formula produces time over time rather than speed. 

For example, if two events occur in the same place with 1 min one after another, the length of the geodesic path is 1 min and the "speed" according to your formula is 1/1 = 1.

From the Wikipedia geodesic article.......

 

For a space-like geodesic through two events, there are always nearby curves which go through the two events that have either a longer or a shorter proper length than the geodesic, even in Minkowski space. In Minkowski space, the geodesic will be a straight line. Any curve that differs from the geodesic purely spatially (i.e. does not change the time coordinate) in any inertial frame of reference will have a longer proper length than the geodesic, but a curve that differs from the geodesic purely temporally (i.e. does not change the space coordinates) in such a frame of reference will have a shorter proper length.....

In my case it's proper length as distance  and co-ordinate time(across metric tensor line as per the diagram) as time...for every unit of time there is increase of proper length towards mass.

Posted
29 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

From the Wikipedia geodesic article.......

 

For a space-like geodesic through two events, there are always nearby curves which go through the two events that have either a longer or a shorter proper length than the geodesic, even in Minkowski space. In Minkowski space, the geodesic will be a straight line. Any curve that differs from the geodesic purely spatially (i.e. does not change the time coordinate) in any inertial frame of reference will have a longer proper length than the geodesic, but a curve that differs from the geodesic purely temporally (i.e. does not change the space coordinates) in such a frame of reference will have a shorter proper length.....

In my case it's proper length as distance  and co-ordinate time(across metric tensor line as per the diagram) as time...for every unit of time there is increase of proper length towards mass.

It cannot be a proper length because proper length has a meaning only between events which are spacelike related, i.e., nothing can get from one to another unless it moves faster than light.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.