Questioning the Assumption That Space Is Continuous by Daniel L Burnstein

Benjamin Dribus

Daniel,

Interesting essay, and I agree with your skepticism about the continuous nature of space. One quick question: how does time come into your QGU? Is it discrete as well? Take care,

Ben Dribus

[deleted]

Hi Ben,

Time in the usual sense does exist in the QGU. Time is here considered to be a purely relational concept that allows us to compare events to cyclic and periodic systems (clocks). It is a powerful and necessary concept, but one that, unlike space, does not correspond to a physical aspect of reality. The dimension we call time must then be purely mathematical dimension.

Since within the QGU time is nothing more than a concept, then the unification of the dimension of time which is purely mathematical with the physical dimensions of space makes no sense. So there is no space-time in the QGU.

That said, even in the QGU, we hardly do physics without some concept of time. So within the QGU, we define a fundamental unit of time which corresponds the action of a preon() making one single preonic leap. The duration of a phenomenon may then be understood as the number of leaps a preon() makes during an interval that is between the beginning and the end of the phenomenon. So, numerically, the duration of phenomenon corresponds also the distance, measured in leaps, that a preon() will travel while the phenomenon occurs.

This definition of time as being a purely relational concept also implies new definitions for notions such as speed, momentum, simultaneity, causality, etc.

I hope the above answers your question.

Best,

Daniel

Daniel Burnstein

Ben,

Anonymous = Me

I was sure was I logged in.

Daniel

Daniel Burnstein

***missing word alert***

I meant to write time *does not* exist in the usual sense.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Daniel,

In your essay is written: < And nothing exists between preons(-) except the n-gravity field that keeps them apart and gives quantum-geometrical space its dimensions.> The problem of such approach is in the question: How the preons were made? What is the origin of n-gravity, p-gravity and mass-energy of preons? The same questions have answers in the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (my essay).

Sergey Fedosin

Daniel Burnstein

Preons(-) and preons() are fundamental and n-gravity and p-gravity are intrinsic to them, hence they have no origin. They are the origin.

All theories of fundamental reality, including your own, assumes certain axioms, which must be assumed as true because, since they represent properties assumed to be fundamental, cannot be proven. My model is no different.

In your own model, one can ask how it came to be that the universe maybe be made of infinite nesting matter. Where would that matter come from?

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Daniel,

Of course you can introduce any entity, for example preons and their gravity, as axioms of your theory and without of proof. But we must use only such axioms which are intuitively clear for us. So why do you choose preons? May be partons are better or interaction of preons must has logical and substantial explanation?

In the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter evolution of matter and field quanta at lower levels of matter is the base for evolution at high levels of matter. The main patterns of evolution are similar at all levels of matter. The wave quanta and relativistic particles are born by compact objects such as nucleons and neutron stars and fill all the space. These wave quanta and relativistic particles then play the role of gravitons and form objects at high levels of matter. So we find causality in structure and evolution of Universe. With the help of coefficients of similarity we can predict properties of small particles and great objects which we can not see directly. The theory gives us receipt how may particles be constructed and we give models of nucleons, electron, quarks and so on.

The ether in the theory exists and composed of gravitons fluxes, so we can find isotropic reference frame in every point of universe free of matter. In isotropic reference frame the speed of light and speed of gravitons is the same and do not depend on direction. Near the masses isotropy is broken and the force of gravitation appeared. Also we can understand force of inertia as the action of gravitons fluxes during of change of motion state. From here strong gravitation at the level of particles, and covariant theory of gravitation at the star-planet level are introduced. In covariant theory of gravitation the force of gravitation is a real physical force. For comparison in general relativity the force of gravitation is calculated too but has no physical explanation. For more about it see my essay.

Sergey Fedosin

Daniel Burnstein

Dear Sergey,

You asked why do I chose preons?

The answer is too long for this discussion board, but should you be interested, you can find the reasons in the opening chapters of my Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics.

You will find also that I introduce a model of space that is isotropic and which forms a absolute background. According to the model I propose, the structure of space determines the structure of matter. As for the constancy of the speed of light, it becomes a direct consequence of the structure of space.

That said, I tried my very best to develop the model in a way that is consistent with its axioms. So though it a generalization of Newton's gravity, to give one example, is directly derived from the model, I make no attempt to coerce it into agreeing with any other theory. That would defeat the entire exercise.

DLB

Sergey Fedosin

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Daniel Burnstein

Thanks, but I really don't care much for the ratings. They only reflect one's opinion of how well someone else's ideas agree with one's own. Ratings say nothing about a theory's inner consistency, consistency with observations and, least of all, about the predictions it makes. It other words, the ratings are pointless and useless.

That said, the contest can be a good starting point of discussion.

I try and avoid rating others.

Daniel

Sergey Fedosin

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Daniel Burnstein

Sergey,

I think you're confusing me with someone else. Wrong thread.

DLB

« Previous Page