A theory of quantum gravity

[Captnq]

Okay... here goes.

 

A Theory of Quantum Gravity:

 

Fresnel Shells in Crumple Space.

 

So, Einstein views space-time as smooth. Long sweeping curves, like heavy objects on a wide sheet of stretchy rubber. However, WMAP has measured the curve of the universe and shown that over all, the universe is flat. Frankly, that makes no sense. With all this matter in it, space should have SOME sort of curve to it, either negative or positive, but no. It's flat. So, how is this possible?

 

The huge sweeping curves of Einstein's general relativity seems like a great deal of wasted, errr… "space". I mean, if you think about it, it has to be curving into SOMETHING. But the universe is flat. Yet space time curves. How can it APPEAR to be curving so much on a local level, yet be flat across the universe?

 

The solution occurs when you apply the concept of a Fresnel Lens to gravity. For those of you who don't understand the concept. A Fresnel lens is a magnifying glass where you cut out all the unneeded glass and have rings of curved glass. This is how they make large, flat magnifying glasses. As long as the light is passing through in a narrow arc, or you make the rings of curved glass narrow enough, you'd have a magnifying glass that works just as well as the classical smoothly arching dome type Magnifying glass.

 

So, let's apply this to Space-time.

 

Space is made up of what I call Fresnel Shells. Either these Fresnel shells have to curve into a Calabri-Yau Manifold or is a series of compression waves. It is possible to apply these concepts without adding a fourth dimension, but I'm not good at the math. For now, I'm sticking with the Calabri-Yau Manifolds, It just works better.

 

For those who don't know, a Calabri-Yau Manifold is basically the concept that the universe has extra dimensions, but they are curled up so small that we cannot perceive them.

 

So that instead of a smoothly sloping 'V' shape to matter at the bottom of a gravity well, space-time would be a distinct series of sections looking something like this:

 

|\|\|\|

 

Each section has a sharper or weaker "angle" depending on if you are approaching to leaving a gravity well. Now, if that is the case, sort of like electrons jumping up to a higher energy level in an atom, as matter moves from Fresnel Shell to Fresnel Shell, you can gain or lose energy (or, in the case of photons, gain or lose frequency.)

 

So we have a solution to Zeno's paradox. Eventually, you divide the distance until you cannot divide distance any further. In short, you have the energy to move to the next Fresnel Shell, or you don't.

 

Now, since every particle with mass is making these Fresnel Shells, they would interfere with one another on a local level, but add to one another for resonance on a macro level. Thus, you have gravity in the macro level, but a frothy universe on a quantum level.

 

Now, I believe that the quarks in a proton creates these Fresnel zones even inside an atom. Now, they do not actually influence the nucleonic forces, but they do direct where matter will be. So, in my theory, the placement of electron shells in an atom is a result of Fresnel shells. Gravity does not hold electrons in place, but it directs WHERE the electrons are allowed to be. The locations of highest probability are where the Fresnel shells' interactions cancel one another out

 

If this is the case, would it not imply that there is no Graviton particle? That the energy gained/lost as matter moves into and out of a gravity well is, on a very small scale, just particles of matter jumping from 3D time-space Fresnel Zone to Fresnel Zone. In effect, Gravity is an illusion. It is not the fourth force, but the guidelines for the application of the other three forces.

 

Now, if my theory is correct, then unstable atoms (radioactivity) is simply a manifestation of matter grouped in ways that creates unstable interference in the Fresnel Shells. They simply shake themselves apart.

 

At a LaGrange point where gravity is perfectly balanced, Classic gravity Theory states that Space-time would be smooth. Would these Fresnel Zones be in maximum interference with one another? Would that mean that quantum weirdness would be at an all time high? Would a Radioactive Element decay faster then normal in such a location? I Believe that if my theory is correct, this is how to test it. Observe protected samples of radioactive materials at a LaGrange point in space where gravity is canceled out. If there is no change in radioactive decay, I am incorrect. If it is not…

 

Now, why is matter/energy both a particle and a wave?

 

Matter is observed as a particle when it is in a Fresnel Shell. But when it is moving to the next, it is a wave while it moves into the Calabri-Yau Manifold, then drops back down into the observable universe. Like so.

 

Cross Section of a Fresnel Shell:

 

 

 

Calabri-Yau Manifold

 

|\...|

|.\..|

|..\.|

|...\|

 

Observable Universe

 

 

 

Now, that would apply to Fermion Particles, but bosons (Photons for example), who have no mass, would they not simply be particles that spend their time in the Calabri-Yau Manifold (I'm just going to call it Crumple Space. I hate typing Calabri-Yau Manifold.)

 

 

 

So, photons would be particles that spend most of their time in crumple space, dropping down to the observable universe as they pass through it, and fermions would be particles that spend their time in the observable universe, going up to Crumple Space as they move from Fresnel Shell to Fresnel Shell.

 

 

 

So, Would the reason why Gravity is so weak in comparison to other forces is that it actually has a series of built in "Speed Bumps"? For lack of a better term.

 

 

 

Also, My theory has implications for Gravity inside a black hole.

 

 

 

So if normally A Fresnel shell would look like this:

 

|\..|

|.\.|

|..\|

 

 

As gravity increases it would become this:

 

|||

|||

|||

 

Where the shells are stacked on top of one another and the gradient is too high for light to escape, you would have an event horizon. If that is the case, would it not imply that gravity has an upward limit? So inside the event horizon, all Fresnel shells are at a 180 degrees perpendicular to observable space. Since to increase the angle any further would just be reversing the direction of gravity, that would mean that gravity has a natural cut off point. Every point inside a black hole would be at the exact same level of gravity. We would not notice this outside, because the Fresnel shells outside the event horizon would still be following the normal gravitational rules.

 

So, would that not stop infinite gravity from happening inside a black hole? Also, quantum mechanics abhors the idea of information being destroyed, and black holes seem to do just that. However, it would seem that the Fresnel shells might be just the ticket for information to 'escape' from a black hole, so that information isn't lost, just extremely difficult to retrieve.

 

Some Q+A from other people I ran my theory by:

 

How does your theory explain Hawking radiation

 

Hawking Radiation is when the quantum foam creates virtual particles. One anti particle gets sucked into the black hole, the other particle escapes. It's mathematically the same as if the black hole was emitting energy on it's own, hence hawking radiation is how a black hole loses mass and energy over time. My theory explains why the quantum foam exists in the first place.

 

So your theory creates this image of a conveyor belt type shell game where things are moved and revealed between the visible and the sublime. And it seems there are ratchets formed controlling and ultimately limiting gravity?

 

Sort of...

 

But you have to think in three dimensions. Conceptually, it's easier to only look at the path a single object takes through the Fresnel Shells.

 

 

That's something I'm trying to figure out. Space could move like a conveyor belt, as you suggest or space might be fixed and objects move because entropy demands that objects seek their ground state/point of equilibrium.

 

In the conveyor belt version, you need something to handle the transfer of energy, that would most likely be a graviton. A particle that has not be detected yet and is only theoretical.

 

I'm proposing we have not detected a graviton because it does not exist. There is no need to make things more complicated then necessary. I'm simply taking the math and experimental data at face value. Space doesn't curve all over the place. Wormholes don't exist. There are no gravitons. Space is effectively "Flat".

 

I propose it does have very tiny "ridges", however. If those ridges are a curled up dimension that is so small that detecting it may be impossible, or if they are simply longitudinal compression waves, I'm not sure. Still trying to work it out.

 

 

Logic gates for mass?

 

Well, if you subscribe to the theory that the universe is effectively a giant quantum computer and everything is just information anyways, then yes. Personally I think that's a bunch of wishful thinking.

 

Where the shells are stacked on top of one another and the gradient is too high for light to escape, you would have an event horizon. A curious question: Would there be a change in gravity - a loss of it - with relation to a vacuum state at the onset of an event horizon?

 

I don't think you are asking the right question, but I think I get what you are driving at.

 

The event horizon is the reason why we need a theory of quantum gravity. Einstein's time-space calculations were great, until you get a black hole. Then you get all sorts of wonky infinities and time loops. Science hates infinities.

 

Okay, here. Let me give an example of what's going on in my theory. it's not REALLY this, but it's close.

 

You get two kids playing jump rope. They swing the rope around and you get a huge loop with two "effectively" stationary points on the end. The two end points are nodes. The point of maximum displacement is an Antinode.

 

The kids start to ramp things up. The shake the rope and suddenly, at some point, they add enough energy that there is a stationary point in the middle. The rest of the rope has divided into two, smaller Antinodes

 

Add enough energy, you get three, then four... Now, with a jump rope, you have a physical limit to how much energy you can add to the rope and what not.

 

Now, instead, take a particle and attach the rope to it. The other end goes on forever. The matter is vibrating and the rope has a series of antinodes and nodes. As you get further from the particle, each antinode is weaker then the one before it. The nodes are all the same, however.

 

So, another particle enters this arrangement. It's a smaller particle and the original particle dominates the arrangement. The new particle can only "exist" at the nodes. So as it approaches the original particle, it gains energy as it jumps from node to node, getting closer and closer.

 

Now Weak and Strong nuclear forces would over ride the collision at some point. Unless you had ALOT of energy in that rope.

 

When you add enough energy to the rope, so much that even a massless particle traveling at the speed of light cannot escape, a curious thing would happen.

 

All the nodes would be next to each other.

 

In effect, there is no "gravity" inside the event horizon. There is also nothing keeping order inside there. Space is so compressed that effectively, everything gets all jumbled up. Distance and time loses all meaning because there is now only ONE node inside the event horizon and it's as big as the event horizon itself.

 

So, in a sense, the answer to your question is yes. The inside of a black hole (under my theory) Would be a vacuum state, but in so much as a black hole is a single point of space expanded to horrific proportions

 

This would also explain why a black hole's entropy is measured by it's surface area, not by it's volume, as is the case with more traditional matter.

 

Why do objects come together?

 

Been thinking about that. I suspect that the Planck Length is the minimal possible distance. The reason is, is this is the "length" from Node to Node or Fresnel Shell to Fresnel Shell. However, the "rope" cannot start IN the particle. I suspect that the first Fresnel shell is just outside the particle. If all Fresnel Shells are the same distance apart, this would mean that no Fresnel shell could ever completely line up with another. Each and every quark and lepton is out of phase with it's own Fresnel shells from the get-go. They'll always be just a 'little bit' out of synch, which means that every particle will be "pushed" to line up with the Fresnel shells.

 

The reason why I suspect the first Fresnel shell is so close to any given quark or lepton, but not actually on top of the quark or lepton is that Quarks have to get VERY close to one another to form a proton or a neutron. The first Fresnel shell would have to be close enough to allow three quarks to come together, but not directly on top of the quark.

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER:

 

Honestly, I'm no scientist. I've just been studying string theory in my spare time and the idea of a Fresnel Lens applied to gravity literally came to me in a dream. I'm posting this more to try and get the idea out of my head, rather then change the way everyone looks at the universe. Please. I encourage people to point out how I'm wrong. It's like a song I can't get out of my head.

[alpha2cen]

How to test the Holographic Universe? How to know it? Is it difficult to do experiment?

[elfmotat]

Physics is an empirical science. Your qualitative description does not make any falsifiable predictions, and is therefore not science.

[IM Egdall]

So, Einstein views space-time as smooth. Long sweeping curves, like heavy objects on a wide sheet of stretchy rubber. However, WMAP has measured the curve of the universe and shown that over all, the universe is flat. Frankly, that makes no sense. With all this matter in it, space should have SOME sort of curve to it, either negative or positive, but no. It's flat. So, how is this possible?

 

The huge sweeping curves of Einstein's general relativity seems like a great deal of wasted, errr… "space". I mean, if you think about it, it has to be curving into SOMETHING. But the universe is flat. Yet space time curves. How can it APPEAR to be curving so much on a local level, yet be flat across the universe?

 

 

Observations indicate the observable universe is flat. But I think the entire universe -- which includes objects so far away their light has not had time to reach us yet -- may very well be curved. Inflation theory predicts the universe underwent an exponential expansion just after the big bang, making the region of the universe we see appear flat. (Sort of like blowing up a balloon to gigantic size so that an ant on the surface of the balloon sees the region it lives on as flat.)

 

I don't think anyone knows for sure what the curvature of the entire universe is.

Edited August 5, 2012 by IM Egdall

[Captnq]

Physics is an empirical science. Your qualitative description does not make any falsifiable predictions, and is therefore not science.

 

Actually, I outlined a test above. I predict that radioactive materials will decay faster at a LaGrange point then in an ordinary gravity well. If the cause of radioactive decay is from atoms with atomic structures that are in combinations where the Fresnel Lens cause interferance and shake themselves into more stable configuations, then in an area of maximum Fresnel lens decoherance (A LaGrange Point) then the decay should speed up.

 

If there is no change in radioactive decay, then I'm wrong.

 

Although it is possible for the decay rate to slow down, in which case I got no clue what the hell that means.

 

Observations indicate the observable universe is flat. But I think the entire universe -- which includes objects so far away their light has not had time to reach us yet -- may very well be curved. Inflation theory predicts the universe underwent an exponential expansion just after the big bang, making the region of the universe we see appear flat. (Sort of like blowing up a balloon to gigantic size so that an ant on the surface of the balloon sees the region it lives on as flat.)

 

I don't think anyone knows for sure what the curvature of the entire universe is.

 

Einstein came up with his theory of Special Realitivity by looking at the math and taking it at face value. This strikes me as the same thing that happened when they tested for ether. They assumed the experiment failed, not that it did not exist.

[juanrga]

Einstein came up with his theory of Special Realitivity by looking at the math and taking it at face value.

 

Einstein, a physicist, developed SR by looking at the physics of both thought and real experiments.

[timo]

A lot of the apparently obvious problems with relativity mentioned in the OP could probably be resolved by actually knowing a bit about the topic. Didn't read the "Fresnel lens theory" part, so I cannot comment on that.

[elfmotat]

Actually, I outlined a test above. I predict that radioactive materials will decay faster at a LaGrange point then in an ordinary gravity well. If the cause of radioactive decay is from atoms with atomic structures that are in combinations where the Fresnel Lens cause interferance and shake themselves into more stable configuations, then in an area of maximum Fresnel lens decoherance (A LaGrange Point) then the decay should speed up.

 

If there is no change in radioactive decay, then I'm wrong.

 

Although it is possible for the decay rate to slow down, in which case I got no clue what the hell that means.

 

That's not a test. You need to white your "theory" mathematically. Once you do that, we can use it to make a numerical prediction. Saying radioactive materials decay "faster" is not a prediction. How much faster? Is the difference measurable?

Edited August 7, 2012 by elfmotat

[Captnq]

That's not a test. You need to white your "theory" mathematically. Once you do that, we can use it to make a numerical prediction. Saying radioactive materials decay "faster" is not a prediction. How much faster? Is the difference measurable?

 

Bull.

 

If I predict that a pound of feathers is lighter then a pound of lead, I am making a testable prediction. It can be tested and determined true or false. Stating that radioactive materials will decay in areas where gravity from multiple sources cancel each other out is a prediction. You want it numerical? Okay. twice as fast. There. Numerical. Now to find out if I'm right, someone will have to fly it up there and find out.

 

I'm still working out the kinks and looking for feedback that is useful. I'm at the "are there any glaringly huge obvious flaws" stage. Also the, "did someone else already work on this?" stage.

 

Got a few other predictions so far.

 

Time travel is not possible backwards further then 1 x 10E-42 seconds, if at all, But I'm still trying to work on that one. Crumple space simply isn't "flexible" enough to allow meaningful time travel.

 

No wormholes.

 

Space is broken up into chunks, so when you measure gravity it will always have some degree of "static." Again, LaGrange points will have more "static" then in a gravity well.

 

We won't be able to detect gravity waves. Gravity is an secondary property, not a force in an of itself.

 

That last one is the one I'm waiting on. If gravity waves exist, I can toss all of this in the trash, so hopefully LISA or NGO will get off the ground and I'll know if I'm wasting my time.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to speculations.

[Mellinia]

I thought Einstein 's GM showed that the universe was curved (it works on Riemann surfaces) and that the stretchy rubber is just an analogy to help understand how the stress-energy tensor affect space-time around the mass in question?

 

Did you mean that the angle in which the shells are inclined increases as they near the mass point?

Edited August 26, 2012 by Mellinia

[Captnq]

I thought Einstein 's GM showed that the universe was curved (it works on Riemann surfaces) and that the stretchy rubber is just an analogy to help understand how the stress-energy tensor affect space-time around the mass in question?

 

Did you mean that the angle in which the shells are inclined increases as they near the mass point?

 

1) Yes, but I think people have taken the analogy and turned it into a literal interpertation, which is what has been blinding people to consider new possibilities.

 

2) Yes. But I'm begining to think I was looking at it backwards.

 

-----

 

Well, turns out I'm not so ground breaking after all. (See On the origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton, By Erik Verlinde)

 

Having read his work and what I was trying to work out, I see that I've been reinventing the wheel. I'm starting to think that it isn't Frensel Shells, but possibly the Higgs field itself that I've been trying to work out.

 

To sum up, Gravity (and I suspect time) are manifestations of Entropy and thus is not actually an elemental "force". I suspect it's entropy in the higgs field. My idea of "Fresnel Shells" was backwards. I was looking at the shells as being the solid things, with "empty" space inbetween.

 

Now I'm thinking that the Shells I've been trying to work out are actually the "empty" space between higgs particles. I suspect that the Higgs particles have an... Angle to them. For lack of a better term they "Slope". So when matter moves through the Higgs field, the field not only gives it mass, but it gives it a direction of least resistance, which would result in a slight amount of entropy, thus why gravity appear to be so weak.

 

While a Fresnel "Shell" may work for describing what happens on a Macro scale, on the level of quantum chromodynamics, the "slope" would have to be broken down into small "packets", or I suspect higgs particles.

 

Over all, not much has changed in my predictions, but I can see everything I worked out is wrong and I have start from scratch.

 

One major problem I'm having is: I'm not sure how information is transmited in the Higgs Field. How do higgs particles "know" what "angle" to be at? Is it something that happens because they all are just touching one another? I know they are force carriers and that's what they "do", but I'm not sure if it's a problem with my math or I'm missing some important detail entirely. It could be more like having a long rope that you "snap" to make a ripple move through it, or maybe they all just "know", but that would mean information moves faster then light, and I got a problem with tachyons in general.

 

Anyrate, just updating in case anyone cares.

[swansont]

1) Yes, but I think people have taken the analogy and turned it into a literal interpertation, which is what has been blinding people to consider new possibilities.

 

Hand-wavy, math-free posts are not evidence that anyone is blinded to new possibilities. Hand-wavy, math-free posts don't meet the minimum burden of being science; i.e. it's not to where it's going to receive any consideration.

[Captnq]

 

Hand-wavy, math-free posts are not evidence that anyone is blinded to new possibilities. Hand-wavy, math-free posts don't meet the minimum burden of being science; i.e. it's not to where it's going to receive any consideration.

 

UGH! Look... I said I was an amature right off the bat, so you all can can the, "You arn't being very scientific posts." I got it. I git the concept. Thank you. Your input is pointless, but noted. I KNOW it. Thanks.

 

ya know, I used to be a human calculator. When I was a kid. Ask me any math problem, I could answer it. At age 5. Then I went to school. In school, they don;t want the answer. They want to teach you the process. In school, the process is step by step by step.

 

I can't do step by step. I skip to the answer. Learning the step by step by step process ruined instant calculations for me because I can't do it if I try to think about it. Now, it still happens from time to time. I'm a human triva machine full of useless information and when I'm in the zone, I can tell you crap about TV shows I watched decades ago.

 

And Yet, I sometimes get lost driving home from work. My memory is a strange place.

 

You know that whole financial colapse back in 2008? I was working in the subprime market back in 2005. I worked out the legal proof for my superiors and I told them, "This will explode in your face in 2 years, so don't use it much, but in the short term, it will grant us huge profits. Let's use it to get out of this hole and figure out a permanent solution later." I was a nieve idiot to assume that given how often employees quit and join other companies, that it would stay at just my branch. I found versions of my filtering programs running for mom and pop Mortgage brokers when I tried to find a new job in earily 2008, for christ's sake.

 

I don't do anything in banking anymore. But I still get "answers" now and again. Answers to very complex problems. I work very well on at the suicide hot line because I talk to someone for a minute and I hear the noise in the background and I know it's all about the hollidays. Or is all about the girlfriend. Or He just wants someone to listen. You want me to explain how? Honestly, I don't know. I get the answer, then I work backwards from that. For me, It's Step A, Step B, Then a miricle occurs, then step Q.

 

Now, it's also garbage in, garbage out. I didn't get this "answer" until I read up on the new research on the Higgs. I could be way off base here. I could have read a bunch of stuff and read the wrong stuff so my answer is based on the wrong raw data. But I am telling you, I know when I have an "Answer". That's what's so maddening about this. I was reading up on all this crap because I was bored and someone was throwing out a bunch of physics books. I don't even know what most of these math equations mean, but that part of my brain that spits out answers knows. And As long as I got the time to spare, I'm going to keep working on this until I find out I'm wrong. I'm assuming i'm wrong. I couldn't possibly be right. But it still eats at me so I need to know.

 

 

 

Now then, why I actually came back:

 

Can anyone direct me to research involving electron shells? Specifically the configuation of electron shells in a Helium Atom with no neutrons, one neutron, and two neutrons.

 

Yes, Neutrons should have no effect on the location of electrons around the nucleus around an atom. I'm wondering if anyone actually took the time to measure it and compare, not just assume that because neutrons have no charge, they would have no effect on the position of electrons.

 

I'd like to see something that says: Yup, we measured it. There is no statistical difference in the location of electrons in a helium atom no matter how many neutrons it has. I'll settle for any research on this matter regarding any element.

[swansont]

IIRC, there are no helium isotopes with no neutrons. Two protons alone will not form a bound state.

 

 

The neutrons do affect the energy levels of the shells. There is an effect of the mass, which you can appreciate classically: the center of mass changes, which affects the force and thus the energy. Scientists aren't geared toward making assumptions and then not testing them.