Theory of Quantum Gravity & Photon Production

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

........

Three things: ..... 2) You are not Newton, ?................)

.

.How do you know ,I am not descended from him. He lived over here in the U.k.

 

Isaac Newton

 

Born: January 4, 1643, Woolsthorpe-by-Colsterworth

Died: March 31, 1727, Kensington, London

Buried: Westminster Abbey, London

Education: Trinity College, Cambridge (16671668),

 

Died 1727 . I have an old penny here dated 1797 Maybe he bequeathed it to me as part of his estate.

 

Maybe the vibes have rubbed off on me !

 

 

 

Who do you think you are ?

 

Mike (lol )

Edited November 30, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[davidivad]

mike.

isaac newton was crazy.

and with his craziness, he gave us the tree of knowledge (the apple).

how fitting is that?

Edited November 30, 2014 by davidivad

[swansont]

.

.How do you know ,I am not descended from him. He lived over here in the U.k.

 

Isaac Newton

 

Born: January 4, 1643, Woolsthorpe-by-Colsterworth

Died: March 31, 1727, Kensington, London

Buried: Westminster Abbey, London

Education: Trinity College, Cambridge (16671668),

 

Died 1727 . I have an old penny here dated 1797 Maybe he bequeathed it to me as part of his estate.

 

Maybe the vibes have rubbed off on me !

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

Who do you think you are ?

 

Mike (lol )

That you admit he's dead and buried confirms that you are not Newton.

 

Are you going to return to the topic, and come up with ways we can test this idea of yours, or do we declare this discussion a lost cause?

[Robittybob1]

.

.How do you know ,I am not descended from him. He lived over here in the U.k.

 

Isaac Newton

 

 

Did he have any kids?

[Strange]

Did he have any kids?

 

He never married. Literally and, I suspect, in the euphemistic sense.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Mike Smith Cosmos,

We have been over this before. This forum requires you to back up scientific claims with science / evidence. If you cannot do this within your next post, this will be closed.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Scientific claims and evidence.

 

Introduction

 

Neil's Bohr and other scientists at the turn of the century investigated the falling of electrons from a higher energy orbit .to an orbit of lower energy. This was the result of adding ,for example heat energy to an atom .

 

As the electron collapsed from the higher orbit to the lower orbit , it had too much energy to maintain an acceptable lower orbit . The surplus energy was given out from this event as pure energy from the electron . The electron did not disappear but continued to circulate the atom at a lower level of energy . This electron contained charge and movement of charge , both by spin and moving charge , thus developing a magnetic field .

 

So we had all the ingredients necessary to make an energy package . Electro- magnetism , spin, frequency , energy . No particle , because the electron was still in association with the atom .

 

The only thing such a package could work on with this ensemble of ( Electro- magnetism , spin, frequency , energy) was the fabric of space time itself , with all the ingredients as specified by Frank Wiczek in his Nobel Award winning work on ' the grid '

 

The evidence to prove at least it's existence of this phenomenon is the creation of photons , in the ways described earlier in this thread , namely Black Body radiation by heat or semiconductor / laser , and radio EM waves by a transmission system ( coil inductor , capacitor , frequency driver and antenna )

 

 

The exact nature of this photon of energy is the subject of this thread. Evidence to date , is such that the impact of this quantum of energy moves out across space at the speed of light. Nobody to date has clearly specified the appearance of this photon, which appears to exist in the body of space time itself. It is proposed that the simplest self contained shape of such an entity is a three dimensional sphere, otherwise described as a bubble. Very very small with short radius . We believe , that such an effect in space is produced( like a wobbling bubble , but in reality a sphere in its quiescent state ) , but no doubt having more a stretched shape as the sphere is subject to the quality of frequency and spin .

 

The science , is to see if such an effect can produce the questionable effects of the dual slit experiment , and the linking necessary to bring some form of unity to the quantum gravity issue.

 

Mike

Edited December 1, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I suppose this equation of general relativity ought to be introduced at some stage .

 

Mathematical form.

------------- quote from Wikipedia -------- General Relativity----------------

On the left-hand side is the Einstein tensor, a specific divergence-free combination of the Ricci tensor and the metric.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

 

Einstein Field Equation is a tensor equation relating a set of symmetric 4×4 tensors. Each tensor has 10 independent components. The four Bianchi identities reduce the number of independent equations from 10 to 6, leaving the metric with four gauge fixing degrees of freedom, which correspond to the freedom to choose a coordinate system.

 

. The equations in contexts outside of general relativity are still referred to as the Einstein field equations. The vacuum field equations (obtained when T is identically zero) define Einstein manifolds.

------------------------ end of quote -----------------

Not that I can cope with it, Einstein used it to produce his image of gravity being this distortion of space time by such things as the masses of planets and stars . However I believe it works even at small scales.

 

My suggestion was ( prompted by various observations as to how energy can enter different mediums in quantised packets. And that the initial projection of energy into the fields was sufficient to make space for a photon's worth of energy to enter the field in the shape illustrated below . Having entered the field under the impetus of the initial energy , the nature of space time , would be to pinch off behind the photon behind one quantum of respective energy . This in effect would repeat the process and project the photon forward at the speed of light , in a succession of quantum jumps. Being in mind that the initial photon has electro magnetic field content, as well as spin content,

 

 

Mike

Edited December 1, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Still waiting on something other than a prelude to all of this. It still sounds like you are proposing a black hole. Is there a gravitational formula that predicts the size of the photon, and also includes the presence of the electric and magnetic fields we know to be present?

 

 

As the electron collapsed from the higher orbit to the lower orbit , it had too much energy to maintain an acceptable lower orbit . The surplus energy was given out from this event as pure energy from the electron .

 

A photon is not pure energy.

[Robittybob1]

Still waiting on something other than a prelude to all of this. It still sounds like you are proposing a black hole. Is there a gravitational formula that predicts the size of the photon, and also includes the presence of the electric and magnetic fields we know to be present?

 

 

 

A photon is not pure energy.

What is "pure energy"? A infrared photon is like "heat" and heat is energy. Photons come close to being like "pure energy" having both energy and momentum. I know what he is meaning but was it the right word?

Edited December 1, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I

 

The vortex hole is empty, the energy is in the water , the structure of the vortex is held by the rotational spin and surface tension of the water . Although , obviously , Only an illustration of how the structural forces ( fields) like electro magnetism in connection with the photon , are surrounding the vortex not the vortex itself .

 

 

 

Mike

A photon is not pure energy.

 

 

Well I was trying to say the electron bit ( whatever that is ) remained in the atom at a lower energy level . The bit that 'came out ' was the electro magnetic field combination , spin, etc , as a proportion of the energy, namely that no longer allowed in the lower orbit.

 

Coming out is probably not the correct expression as it was a direct disturbance in the Einstein space time metric itself and all the other stuff contained in Wilczec' s ' Grid' . Like the votex is in the water . ( only a model ) !

 

In the water model the vortex quietly drifts down stream , in the ' Grid ' model , the photon hares off at the speed of light, all be it only an effect on the 'grid ' as opposed to anything actually there . The moral of this story possibly being , ' we should be looking at the nature of the Grid, not the nature of the 'thing ' (photon)

 

Things move fairly pedestrianly , effects can move pretty darn fast ' like the speed of light ' .

 

Perhaps this is where the difficulty lies, by treating too many ' things ' as particles , rather than some 'particles' and some 'effects '

 

By the way , it is of no consequence that ideas are produced as typed statements by a human operator , or by a bunch of monkeys hitting a typewriter randomly .

 

If what comes out is true , it will work , if it is not true , it will not work !

Edited December 1, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Well I was trying to say the electron bit ( whatever that is ) remained in the atom at a lower energy level . The bit that 'came out ' was the electro magnetic field combination , spin, etc , as a proportion of the energy, namely that no longer allowed in the lower orbit.

 

Coming out is probably not the correct expression as it was a direct disturbance in the Einstein space time metric itself and all the other stuff contained in Wilczec' s ' Grid' . Like the votex is in the water . ( only a model ) !

 

In the water model the vortex quietly drifts down stream , in the ' Grid ' model , the photon hares off at the speed of light, all be it only an effect on the 'grid ' as opposed to anything actually there . The moral of this story possibly being , ' we should be looking at the nature of the Grid, not the nature of the 'thing ' (photon)

 

Things move fairly pedestrianly , effects can move pretty darn fast ' like the speed of light ' .

 

Perhaps this is where the difficulty lies, by treating too many ' things ' as particles , rather than some 'particles' and some 'effects '

 

By the way , it is of no consequence that ideas are produced as typed statements by a human operator , or by a bunch of monkeys hitting a typewriter randomly .

Yes, what is sent out is electromagnetic in nature, and has energy, and both linear and angular momentum. What is the link to gravity?

 

If what comes out is true , it will work , if it is not true , it will not work !

 

That's what I'm trying to do: check to see how/if this will work.

[Strange]

 

Coming out is probably not the correct expression as it was a direct disturbance in the Einstein space time metric itself and all the other stuff contained in Wilczec' s ' Grid' . Like the votex is in the water . ( only a model ) !

 

You might have more luck if you realise that changes in the geometry of space-time are what we perceive as photons. But changes in the electromagnetic field are what we perceive as photons. It isn't clear why you think changes in the geometry of space and time can produce electromagnetic effects; it just doesn't have those properties.

 

 

Perhaps this is where the difficulty lies, by treating too many ' things ' as particles , rather than some 'particles' and some 'effects '

 

But the important point is that those "effects" are quantised - that is all that is meant by the shorthand of referring to light as "particles".

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Yes, what is sent out is electromagnetic in nature, and has energy, and both linear and angular momentum. What is the link to gravity?

 

 

The perturbation of the Grid and General Relativity Einstein Gravity metric with its tensor equations are the link to Gravity.

The energy, Angular and linear momentum are the link to the Spherical Bubble Photon . I think !

[elfmotat]

The perturbation of the Grid and General Relativity Einstein Gravity metric with its tensor equations are the link to Gravity.

The energy, Angular and linear momentum are the link to the Spherical Bubble Photon . I think !

 

What solution of the field equations are you using to describe these "spherical bubble photons"? What sort of stress-energy allows for solutions of this type?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

You might have more luck if you realise that changes in the geometry of space-time are what we perceive as photons. But changes in the electromagnetic field are what we perceive as photons. It isn't clear why you think changes in the geometry of space and time can produce electromagnetic effects; it just doesn't have those properties.

 

 

But the important point is that those "effects" are quantised - that is all that is meant by the shorthand of referring to light as "particles".

oops ! Cross posted.

 

Going out for few hours . Need to think on what you and Swansont and elfmotat

have said

 

Mike

Edited December 1, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Yes, what is sent out is electromagnetic in nature, and has energy, and both linear and angular momentum. What is the link to gravity?

 

 

 

We know from Einsteins observations of the sun and mercury that light interacted with gravity , or at least space time was bent enough to cause light to bend under the influence of gravity distortions and space curvature.

 

If the travelling void or bubble is in fact what I suggest , Not a particle or thing , but rather the absence of a thing ( a void ) , an effect of a very small spherical distortion travelling through the metric of space time. Then we can say , what we call A Photon . The internal surface of this void type spherical bubble may well be host to attributes mentioned namely ( energy, and both linear and angular momentum) . This may maintain the void during its travel , in the same way ( a parallel analogy of a soap bubble uses air pressure and surface tension to maintain their shape.) At the end of the soap bubble journey it goes pop ,and releases its pressure , and surface tension content and energy blows droplets as a splatter. At the end of the journey of the ' photon Void ' the interaction at its destination , perhaps gives energy and momentum and spin to an electron , taking it to a higher energy level.

.

 

 

You might have more luck if you realise that changes in the geometry of space-time are what we perceive as photons. But changes in the electromagnetic field are what we perceive as photons. It isn't clear why you think changes in the geometry of space and time can produce electromagnetic effects; it just doesn't have those properties.

 

 

But the important point is that those "effects" are quantised - that is all that is meant by the shorthand of referring to light as "particles".

.If Quantum mechanics and gravity are to be reconciled , there must exist some form of continuity even if different features become more prominent at different scales of size ( very small) quantum Certain things feature strongly , other features not,

( very large ) the opposite with small things hardly individually prominent , yet large mass dominating. However I would posit that all influences are there even if insignificant. I once read that the statistical rate at which hydrogen fuses to helium ,is no more dense than a warm cup of coffee but the aggregate of 20,000,000/ whatever or so make the sun as roasting hot as it is .

 

However , as I understand quantum ( which seems to cover a multitude of characteristics ) really was significant in the individual Quantum sized chunks of Planck . And this if I am not mistaken originates from the individual wavelength of a single, or multiple of wavelengths associated with the electron ,in orbit . ( only complete wavelengths permissible, or integer multiples of wavelengths.

which of course is responsible for the 'photons ' of light we are discussing. ALL one way or another working from the very small to the very large.

 

 

 

 

 

What solution of the field equations are you using to describe these "spherical bubble photons"? What sort of stress-energy allows for solutions of this type?

.

Elfmotat, I am aware of the sort of mathematical mechanisms that go toward , bringing the various features of Einsteins equations to prominence. I remember with some trepidation my university maths sessions to do with field theory, curl and divergence , wave equations, Fourier, Laplace, imaginary numbers in three dimensions , Matrices. But although I could follow most of the maths to do with general relativity, I am too old in the tooth, and rusty to pilot myself through such mathematics to do with these ' tensors' and field equations.

 

I am happy in the regard here , on this issue , that IF nature has demonstrated that the issues of 'Quantum' ' Waves ' ' Spheres , both sold and hollow ' are repeated phenomenon , used by nature , demonstrated by nature, and time tested by nature . then there is a good chance that such hollow spherical mechanisms serve useful functions from the very small to the very large. Certainly this shows up in solid spheres ( from mist and raindrops to Stars ) . I am suggesting here that Hollow spheres may show up at the quantum size. I think proving it mathematically , I need to be honest , is beyond me. Though I do believe I could follow the maths, if my head did not hurt too much .

 

Mike

Edited December 2, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

 

We know from Einsteins observations of the sun and mercury that light interacted with gravity , or at least space time was bent enough to cause light to bend under the influence of gravity distortions and space curvature.

 

If the travelling void or bubble is in fact what I suggest , Not a particle or thing , but rather the absence of a thing ( a void ) , an effect of a very small spherical distortion travelling through the metric of space time. Then we can say , what we call A Photon . The internal surface of this void type spherical bubble may well be host to attributes mentioned namely ( energy, and both linear and angular momentum) . This may maintain the void during its travel , in the same way ( a parallel analogy of a soap bubble uses air pressure and surface tension to maintain their shape.) At the end of the soap bubble journey it goes pop ,and releases its pressure , and surface tension content and energy blows droplets as a splatter. At the end of the journey of the ' photon Void ' the interaction at its destination , perhaps gives energy and momentum and spin to an electron , taking it to a higher energy level.

 

And Einstein predicted the amount of deflection — that's how we know he was right. Newtonian gravity predicts a different amount of deflection. So what is needed, before you can proceed, is something that shows how gravity can cause this so-called bubble. You want to jump ahead an explore other things, but if such a bubble isn't even possible, all of that discussion is moot. So establish that gravity can do what you are proposing.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

And Einstein predicted the amount of deflection that's how we know he was right. Newtonian gravity predicts a different amount of deflection. So what is needed, before you can proceed, is something that shows how gravity can cause this so-called bubble. You want to jump ahead an explore other things, but if such a bubble isn't even possible, all of that discussion is moot. So establish that gravity can do what you are proposing.

O.k. But I thought it was all the various Tensors that pushed and pulled space into the vaguely 'static ' grid or metric that is illustrated by the various commentators of Einstein's work .

 

So although in this case the sun is bending the lines portraying Einstein's metric , if the sun was not there the metric is flat and regular. I understood it was his equations that gave birth to the flat grid , all be it in 3 dimensions or 4 with time ..

 

So within the Einstein equations surely there are some variables that can be tweaked, to produce a small hollow sphere? Say roughly sodium radiation frequency. Energy equivalent . There will be an associated wavelength. Radius of hollow sphere = 2 wavelengths . Inject into the metric ... Zing away it goes .....

 

Here is a quote from a site discussing soap bubbles and Einstein's general theory : I will dig up the link

&

""

So what's the connection with Einstein and his theories? In short: mathematics. The structure of the equations obeyed by minimal surfaces or soap bubbles is eerily similar to that of Einstein's equations, the centerpiece of his general theory of relativity. To be sure, there are differences as well - for instance, the space-times of general relativity are intrinsically distorted, while minimal surfaces are distorted surfaces embedded in a higher-dimensional space. But there are strong analogies between the two geometrical situations, and many methods of finding solutions or studying properties of equations can be used in both contexts. Results from the theory of minimal surfaces give information that is important for analyzing solutions to Einstein's equations, and vice versa. Whoever finds an interesting soap-skin shape might, at the same time, have discovered important information about simple model universes in Einstein's theory. That's why, at institutes like the Albert-Einstein-Institute, you can find mathematicians working on both superficially dissimilar problems - on abstract models of the universe and on questions from the world of soap bubbles.

""

 

Link :- http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/soap_bubbles

 

Mike

Edited December 2, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[elfmotat]

I am happy in the regard here , on this issue , that IF nature has demonstrated that the issues of 'Quantum' ' Waves ' ' Spheres , both sold and hollow ' are repeated phenomenon , used by nature , demonstrated by nature, and time tested by nature . then there is a good chance that such hollow spherical mechanisms serve useful functions from the very small to the very large. Certainly this shows up in solid spheres ( from mist and raindrops to Stars ) . I am suggesting here that Hollow spheres may show up at the quantum size. I think proving it mathematically , I need to be honest , is beyond me. Though I do believe I could follow the maths, if my head did not hurt too much .

 

Mike, you're putting us in the position of having to comment on something which isn't well-defined. We simply don't know what you mean by "spherical bubbles." It sounds an awful lot like a black hole, but apparently that's not what you're trying to describe. Classically a black hole can be arbitrarily small, and its properties are completely determined by its mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. This sounds directly analogous to the properties of elementary particles (ignoring weak and color charge), which is what prompts some people to think about whether elementary particles can be described as black holes. On the other hand, AFAIK nobody actually believes that particles are really black holes.

 

O.k. But I thought it was all the various Tensors that pushed and pulled space into the vaguely 'static ' grid or metric that is illustrated by the various commentators of Einstein's work .

image.jpg

 

So although in this case the sun is bending the lines portraying Einstein's metric , if the sun was not there the metric is flat and regular. I understood it was his equations that gave birth to the flat grid , all be it in 3 dimensions or 4 with time ..

 

So within the Einstein equations surely there are some variables that can be tweaked, to produce a small hollow sphere? Say roughly sodium radiation frequency. Energy equivalent . There will be an associated wavelength. Radius of hollow sphere = 2 wavelengths . Inject into the metric ... Zing away it goes .....

 

As I said, this sounds an awful lot like a black hole. A BH with a mass energy as small as you describe would have an event horizon ~30 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length.

 

""

So what's the connection with Einstein and his theories? In short: mathematics. The structure of the equations obeyed by minimal surfaces or soap bubbles is eerily similar to that of Einstein's equations, the centerpiece of his general theory of relativity. To be sure, there are differences as well - for instance, the space-times of general relativity are intrinsically distorted, while minimal surfaces are distorted surfaces embedded in a higher-dimensional space. But there are strong analogies between the two geometrical situations, and many methods of finding solutions or studying properties of equations can be used in both contexts. Results from the theory of minimal surfaces give information that is important for analyzing solutions to Einstein's equations, and vice versa. Whoever finds an interesting soap-skin shape might, at the same time, have discovered important information about simple model universes in Einstein's theory. That's why, at institutes like the Albert-Einstein-Institute, you can find mathematicians working on both superficially dissimilar problems - on abstract models of the universe and on questions from the world of soap bubbles.

""

 

They're explaining how Riemannian geometry is used for both soap bubbles and GR, not anything having to do with gravitational bubbles. This shouldn't be surprising either: Riemannian geometry is simply the geometry of curved spaces. The surface of a soap bubble is a 2D curved space.

 

 

If you're wondering whether or not Riemannian geometry can be used to model electromagnetism (and therefore light), the answer is: yes, but with some issues. It was invented ~100 years ago, and is called Kaluza-Klein Theory. I'll give a quick explanation if you're curious:

 

Basically, the entire theory of General Relativity can be boiled down to two equations: its Lagrangian and its equation of motion (the geodesic equation):

 

[math]\mathcal{L}_{GR}=\sqrt{-g} \, R[/math]

 

[math]m U^{\nu} \nabla_{\nu} U^{\mu} = 0[/math]

 

where g is the determinant of the metric, R is the Ricci curvature scalar (which contains second derivatives of the metric), U is four-velocity and m is the mass of a test particle. The Einstein field equations (which determine the gravitational field) are derived from the Lagrangian, and the geodesic equation tells you how things move when there are no other forces present. Similarly, the entire theory of electromagnetism can be represented by two equations: its Lagrangian and its equation of motion (the Lorentz force law):

 

[math]\mathcal{L}_{EM} = \frac{1}{4} \sqrt{-g} \, F^2[/math]

 

[math]m U^\nu \nabla_\nu U^{\mu} = q U^{\sigma} F^{\mu}_{~\sigma}[/math]

 

where F is the electromagnetic field and q is the charge of a test particle. Maxwell's equations are derived from the Lagrangian, and the Lorentz force law tells you how things move when only gravity and electromagnetism are present. Kaluza realized that if you postulate a tiny "curled-up" fifth spacial dimension, and if you construct the 5D metric in particular way, then something magical happens. By analogy with gravity in 4D, we define a 5D gravitational Lagrangian as:

 

[math]\mathcal{L}= \sqrt{-\tilde{g}} \, \tilde{R}[/math]

 

where the tildes above g and R denote that they are the 5D versions. The 5D metric is defined as:

 

[math]\tilde{g}_{AB}=\begin{pmatrix} g_{\mu \nu}+\phi^2 A_\mu A_\nu & \phi A_\mu \\ \phi A_\nu & \phi \end{pmatrix}[/math]

 

where the capital Roman indices run from 0 to 4, Greek indices run from 0 to 3, [math]g_{\mu \nu}[/math] is the usual 4D metric, [math]A_{\mu}[/math] is the electromagnetic potential, and [math]\phi[/math] is some constant (technically it's a scalar field). If you work out the determinant of the 5D metric, you find [math]\tilde{g}=g[/math]. If you work out the 5D Ricci scalar with this definition of the 5D metric, you find:

 

[math]\tilde{R}=R+\frac{1}{4} F^2[/math]

 

So the five-dimensional gravitational Lagrangian becomes:

 

[math]\mathcal{L} = \sqrt{-g} \left (R + \frac{1}{4} F^2 \right ) = \mathcal{L}_{GR} + \mathcal{L}_{EM}[/math]

 

Almost miraculously, 4D gravity + electromagnetism seems to pop right out of the definition of 5D gravity. Similarly, if we work out the 5D geodesic equation, we obtain the following two equations:

 

[math]\xi \equiv U^4 + A_{\mu} U^{\mu} = const.[/math]

 

[math]U^\nu \nabla_\nu U^{\mu} = \xi U^{\sigma} F^{\mu}_{~\sigma}[/math]

 

The first equation tells us that there is some conserved quantity having to do with motion. The second equation looks startlingly familiar to the Lorentz force law. Indeed if we identify [math]\xi = q/m[/math] then the two become equivalent. Interestingly, this gives us a definition of electric charge:

 

[math]q=mU^4 + mA_{\mu} U^{\mu}[/math]

 

Since U⁴ is the velocity through the extra dimension, we associate charge with a particle's momentum through the extra dimension.

 

Kaluza-Klein theory has a lot of problems though. For example: the size of the fifth dimension should be unstable, which should cause it to blow up and become macroscopic. It also predicts a so-far unobserved scalar field. The theory can't be made quantum mechanical either, because it includes General Relativity as-is.

 

**Note that I've cheated a bit in places. For example I set [math]\phi=1[/math] for simplicity, and I've assumed the fifth dimension is too small to have a significant effect on the 4D motion of objects.

Edited December 2, 2014 by elfmotat

[ajb]

If you're wondering whether or not Riemannian geometry can be used to model electromagnetism (and therefore light), the answer is: yes, but with some issues. It was invented ~100 years ago, and is called Kaluza-Klein Theory.

And just as a remark, you can generalise this to the non-abelian case also. You can also play similar games on supermanifolds. I am not sure if that would be a reasonable way to introduce fermions into KK theory...

[swansont]

O.k. But I thought it was all the various Tensors that pushed and pulled space into the vaguely 'static ' grid or metric that is illustrated by the various commentators of Einstein's work .

image.jpg

 

So although in this case the sun is bending the lines portraying Einstein's metric , if the sun was not there the metric is flat and regular. I understood it was his equations that gave birth to the flat grid , all be it in 3 dimensions or 4 with time ..

Yes.

 

 

So within the Einstein equations surely there are some variables that can be tweaked, to produce a small hollow sphere? Say roughly sodium radiation frequency. Energy equivalent . There will be an associated wavelength. Radius of hollow sphere = 2 wavelengths . Inject into the metric ... Zing away it goes .....

Yes, I think that's possible; I'm not the only one to say that it sounds like you're describing a black hole. What I have been asking you is to give the answer, instead of repeating that there is an answer. because I don't think that a photon at the sodium wavelength, which has an energy around 2 eV, is going to give you anything close to a 1 micron bubble.

 

 

 

Here is a quote from a site discussing soap bubbles and Einstein's general theory : I will dig up the link

&

""

So what's the connection with Einstein and his theories? In short: mathematics. The structure of the equations obeyed by minimal surfaces or soap bubbles is eerily similar to that of Einstein's equations, the centerpiece of his general theory of relativity. To be sure, there are differences as well - for instance, the space-times of general relativity are intrinsically distorted, while minimal surfaces are distorted surfaces embedded in a higher-dimensional space. But there are strong analogies between the two geometrical situations, and many methods of finding solutions or studying properties of equations can be used in both contexts. Results from the theory of minimal surfaces give information that is important for analyzing solutions to Einstein's equations, and vice versa. Whoever finds an interesting soap-skin shape might, at the same time, have discovered important information about simple model universes in Einstein's theory. That's why, at institutes like the Albert-Einstein-Institute, you can find mathematicians working on both superficially dissimilar problems - on abstract models of the universe and on questions from the world of soap bubbles.

""

 

Link :- http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/soap_bubbles

 

Mike

That the math of soap bubbles and GR are similar is not in question. A mouse and an elephant are similar, in that they can be grey, have four legs, a head, and a tail. But pointing out vague similarities is not enough, because a mouse is not an elephant.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Yes.

..........

nt.

I have the test. .. Although the test has already been done , with results .. And helps explain the double slit experiment ...all in one go ......I think ...glug!

 

 

We set up an electron ,change orbit ' , photon' creation . This bit we know.

It enters the grid , metric , in some form or other .. ( this is the bit we don't know, but we surmise, and I say is not a particle , but an effect, namely an empty void , with nothing inside ( no particle , no nothing ) the void is surrounded by a very small spherical shaped wall of the metric which has been disturbed by the electron spare energy, consisting of structural energy, electro magnetism , rotational spin energy, forward momentum at the speed of light. This bit is the bit we need to test. In a moment.

The photon then reaches the end point in its destination where it interacts with another atom , say an electron absorbs the photon of energy etc and is excited to a higher orbit. This bit we know.

 

Back to the bit in the middle, the test . We look in on the photon half way through its journey and see what we see. ...Observe. ...

 

But that is precisely what we do with the double slit experiment! What happens the photon wave function collapses.

We see particle type behaviour , in other words we have brought the end destination forward, we have broken the bubble in the metric and we are with a burst bubble with normal photon electron interaction.

 

Now I appreciate this is a little like picking oneself up with your own bootstraps , but none the less, this particular simple test, has been survived! And contributed to the wave particle duality/ double slit experiment in the process.

 

Mike

 

Ps I am in the middle of Exeter delivering some paintings , so you may not get an immediate response, .

Edited December 3, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Yes, I think that's possible; I'm not the only one to say that it sounds like you're describing a black hole. What I have been asking you is to give the answer, instead of repeating that there is an answer. because I don't think that a photon at the sodium wavelength, which has an energy around 2 eV, is going to give you anything close to a 1 micron bubble.

 

The main reason i have not jumped at the ' black hole ' that a couple of you have suggested ,is that although i accept that this can be very miniature, I associate black holes with concentrated, relatively large amounts of mass in say a singularity at its center , and again being an entity, particle of thing separate from the metric or grid , rather than as I am proposing , the energy, mass ,spin , momentum and rotating electromagnetic field , becomes part of the metric , is injected into the metric to become this bubble , which unless interrupted, will set up a chain , of internal energy transferring bubbles , like collapsing domino's , off into the distance at the speed of light.

 

mike

 

Mike, you're putting us in the position of having to comment on something which isn't well-defined. We simply don't know what you mean by "spherical bubbles." It sounds an awful lot like a black hole, but apparently that's not what you're trying to describe. Classically a black hole can be arbitrarily small, and its properties are completely determined by its mass, electric charge, and angular momentum. This sounds directly analogous to the properties of elementary particles (ignoring weak and color charge), which is what prompts some people to think about whether elementary particles can be described as black holes. On the other hand, AFAIK nobody actually believes that particles are really black holes.

 

 

As I said, this sounds an awful lot like a black hole. A BH with a mass energy as small as you describe would have an event horizon ~30 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length.

 

 

They're explaining how Riemannian geometry is used for both soap bubbles and GR, not anything having to do with gravitational bubbles. This shouldn't be surprising either: Riemannian geometry is simply the geometry of curved spaces. The surface of a soap bubble is a 2D curved space.

 

 

If you're wondering whether or not Riemannian geometry can be used to model electromagnetism (and therefore light), the answer is: yes, but with some issues. It was invented ~100 years ago, and is called Kaluza-Klein Theory. I'll give a quick explanation if you're curious:

 

Basically, the entire theory of General Relativity can be boiled down to two equations: its Lagrangian and its equation of motion (the geodesic equation):

 

[math]\mathcal{L}_{GR}=\sqrt{-g} \, R[/math]

 

[math]m U^{\nu} \nabla_{\nu} U^{\mu} = 0[/math]

 

 

I wish I could spend a fortnight , sitting down with you and going through this math with you. I worry that you may tire of me , with my constant referral to similarities in other areas of nature. However I am heartened , by the fact that others are looking at spherical structures in some way. Unfortunately i have left my wilczec book over in Italy , as he speakes of EM waves being present in the metric and grid .

 

mike

And just as a remark, you can generalise this to the non-abelian case also. You can also play similar games on supermanifolds. I am not sure if that would be a reasonable way to introduce fermions into KK theory...

Ajb perhaps you could elaborate slightly .

[swansont]

The main reason i have not jumped at the ' black hole ' that a couple of you have suggested ,is that although i accept that this can be very miniature, I associate black holes with concentrated, relatively large amounts of mass in say a singularity at its center , and again being an entity, particle of thing separate from the metric or grid , rather than as I am proposing , the energy, mass ,spin , momentum and rotating electromagnetic field , becomes part of the metric , is injected into the metric to become this bubble , which unless interrupted, will set up a chain , of internal energy transferring bubbles , like collapsing domino's , off into the distance at the speed of light.

 

This is why you need to have an actual model, because this hand-waving doesn't actually convey any useful information. How else do you get curvature of spacetime, other than by having a large amount of mass (or energy)?