manifolds/long range forces

[granpa]

Manifold:

if our 3d world is a manifold in a 4d world then

a huge worlds could form on the surface of this manifold.

 

smaller manifolds could form from gamma ray bursts at the centers of galaxies.

 

fields as stess in manifold does not work:

the obvious idea of simply relating stress/strain in the manifold with long range forces does not lead to an inverse square law.

 

What would you have to do to get it to work?

lets take the electric field as an example.

the manifold would have to be made of particles each of which is an electric dipole.

you can think of each dipole as a positive charge and a negative charge connected by a spring.

now think of the manifold as being 2 manifolds.

one of positive charges and the other of negative changes.

each manifold tries to maintain constant density.

it resists compression and rarefication (it resists change in divergence).

a positive ion at any point in the manifold will push away the positive charges surrounding it

and will pull the negative charges toward itself.

the field of the ion at any point is the degree to which the dipoles at that point are pulled apart.

in other words its the degree to which the spring is stretched or compressed.

this does usually give an inverse square law.

There are however special geometric arrangements that require

that the manifold resist change in curl as well as change in divergence.

In other words, it is far from a simple elastic.

It is much simpler to just treat the field itself as fundamental

 

ether:

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

 

The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.

 

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

 

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it.

 

But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

 

Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else--with the help of small floats, for instance--we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics--if, in fact, nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles.

But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.

space ceases to be a 'thing' and becomes an idea. a description of the way that fields (or rather their values at various points) and particles interact.

 

non-inverse square law force:

for a force, like gravity or the electric force, that follows an inverse square law the force at the surface of a particle is inversely proportional to the square of its radius. (assuming that its mass or charge remains unchanged)

 

a force that follows an inverse cube or higher law would be negligible everywhere except very near the surface. surprisingly, the strength of such a force measured at the surface of a particle would also be inversely proportional to the square of the radius of that particle. (assuming, of course, that the mass or strong charge remains the same) the potential in the center of such a body would be inversely proportional to its radius.

 

origin of the universe:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/34196-origin-of-the-universe-matterantimatter/

 

relativity 101

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=314080

Edited October 5, 2010 by granpa

[granpa]

deleted

Edited October 5, 2010 by granpa

[granpa]

deleted

Edited October 5, 2010 by granpa

[granpa]

deleted

Edited October 5, 2010 by granpa
Consecutive posts merged.

[granpa]

deleted

Edited October 5, 2010 by granpa
Consecutive posts merged.