How space is produced

[qsa]

The attached file illustrates how space is produced. Although this is a simplified version of my theory but it is also similar to other "mainstream" theories like LQG and GR. The lines represent energy of the point particles that it starts from. the two points in the right hand figure are concidered higher energy(say a mini blackhole) the lines shoot to the other 9 lower energy particles , a bunch near and a bunch far. the crossing of the lines red dots for the green lines and yellow for the blue lines. You can think of space as these crossings. notice the density and the distribution of the crossings , these are equivalent to space geometry.

 

As a matter of fact you can infere the existence of the particles from the space "geometry", they are related. that is how we can model one in terms of the other.

 

Of course , this is a simplified picture (although no too far from the truth). in reality you will have infintly many of these lines crossing and making the geometry of space(not the same as GR but equivalent, Moreover, no space is defined outside of these crossings. so no single particle can exist ,because there will not be lines to other particles and it cannot exist and hence there is no space for it anyway.

 

 

So space is defined by the energy lines.

Edited February 21, 2012 by qsa

[md65536]

The attached file illustrates how space is produced.

 

I haven't nearly the intellect required to make sense of all that, but the diagram reminds me of another, the second last here:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/10/why_we_think_theres_a_multiver.php

 

It may have related ideas?

I'd bet you have a better chance of detecting evidence of your "lines" than others have of finding real physical evidence of a multiverse, so I look forward to hearing about such discoveries!

 

 

[ajb]

The attached file illustrates how space is produced. Although this is a simplified version of my theory but it is also similar to other "mainstream" theories like LQG and GR.

 

Calling loop quantum gravity mainstream made me smile.

 

The number of people working in loop quantum gravity or other canonical attempts to quantise gravity is tiny compared to string theory. Without actually judging if LQG is a good model or not, can we really say it is mainstream based on the numbers?

 

I would say that LQG is established as a genuine active area of research, but I would hesitate to say mainstream.

[qsa]

I haven't nearly the intellect required to make sense of all that, but the diagram reminds me of another, the second last here:

http://scienceblogs...._a_multiver.php

 

It may have related ideas?

I'd bet you have a better chance of detecting evidence of your "lines" than others have of finding real physical evidence of a multiverse, so I look forward to hearing about such discoveries!

 

 

 

 

As far as the interpretation I think I am going to wait for some more results before I can open my mouth. My theory at this time is purely" shut up and simulate". But the Idea of the space that I presented was easy to produce as an example, and I thought it would be a good visualizing tool for a GR like theory. Also my theory has much to say about gravity and space expansion( which in my theory only the gravitational coupling changes strength and sign). But that is for another time. I will show the results of the simulation that I promised you soon, I've been very hard at work to test many( well maybe few) possibilities. Simultion can be very frustrating because to get some desired accuracy you can do nothing but wait, see the results and tweek the programs parameters , and go in a loop.

 

Calling loop quantum gravity mainstream made me smile.

 

The number of people working in loop quantum gravity or other canonical attempts to quantise gravity is tiny compared to string theory. Without actually judging if LQG is a good model or not, can we really say it is mainstream based on the numbers?

 

I would say that LQG is established as a genuine active area of research, but I would hesitate to say mainstream.

 

That was the reason I put mainstream in quotation. But also the defintion is not god given but it does not strongly suggest quantity as the criteria. for example see the

My link

McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Dictionary

 

Anyway, there is enough war between Lubosh and woit and others. I look upon them in a fatherly love for all of them. Maybe someday I will point to the areas of similarity between them and my theory.

[derek w]

why do your 2 point particles of energy not radiate outward spherically,creating interfering waves?

Does your picture represent slices of 3dimensional space?

Edited February 23, 2012 by derek w

[qsa]

why do your 2 point particles of energy not radiate outward spherically,creating interfering waves?

Does your picture represent slices of 3dimensional space?

 

Very good question. The dimention is 2D in the diagram, but I will say more about dimensions; from the looks of it 3D space is the maximum possible. I will prepare some diagrams for you and I will show what I call the greatest graph ever. Meantime ,please have a look at this thread and my website link in it, so you may have some background which will make it easier to understand my response.

 

Ok, The short answer is that even in my unconventional theory relativity rears its head. So that forces lines to go from one particle to another otherwise you will get a disaster just like in conventional theories if you do not respect lorentz transformation.

 

My link

[qsa]

Alright, here is the follow up. see attached drawing. In this case I represent each single particle by a box that shoot lines to other boxes. I simplify by not showing all the lines so as to reduce cluterring. Now, if you had reviewed my theory I get interaction going by throwing these green lines in a random fashion and if they don't cross I keep them and add them up to the previous total (they reprent energy). that is done randomly for all the available points. When I do that in 1D that is simple. but if I go to 2D and do the same process but splitting the component in X and Y I immediatly run into contradiction. If I move the particle L to another equal distance(L') but a diffrent location and calculate the energies (also strength of forces between them) I find them different which means the system has created fititious forces. The system should not depend on the coordinates. This illustration is a simplified version of the gray lines that I show as NOT ALLOWED. if you allow for these lines then the same problem will show up with a vengence.

 

So, if I just deal with the line length from one particle to the other,This will be equivalent to 1D (X-axis) interaction on the distance between them and an interaction which is restricted to the particles width in the Y axis, and this interaction is not affected by distance(this could be the EPR pradox). It is interresting that just like in the relativistic dirac equation the spin appeared as a consequence of relativity, the same has happened in my theory.

Edited February 23, 2012 by qsa