Dimensional Reduction in the Sky

I just wanted to point out..

To an extent; one can draw an analogy by equating 'from the inside' with 'probing on a small level of scale' and 'from the outside' with 'probing on a larger level of scale' because the observer or detection platform always has a particular size, and there will be larger spaces 'out there' than whatever space is contained 'in here' - the space from which observations are taking place. This connects up with what Tom Ray said in his essay from last year, that observation always takes place from a center and defines a sense of toward and away.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

Hello again,

It appears that the idea for 'Rainbow Gravity' was first set out in a paper by Magueijo and Smolin called Gravity's Rainbow that appeared in 'Classical and Quantum Gravity' in '04. The most important piece of that work to the current effort and the 'Dimensional Reduction..' paper is found in the following excerpt.

"the geometry of spacetime may depend on the energy of a particle moving in it. Thus, spacetime geometry has an effective description; in the language of the renormalization group, geometry "runs." Hence there is no single spacetime dual to momentum space; the dual to momentum space is the energy dependent family of metrics."

That is; the spectral dimension D runs with the energy E we use, or equivalently with the smallness of scale we probe the dimensionality of space in, making spacetime appear 2-d as we approach a UV cutoff (toward the Planck scale) and 4-d toward the infrared, or as we approach the common level of scale. The 'family of metrics' noted in the quote above constitute the 'rainbow' of Rainbow Gravity.

More later,

Jonathan

The team of Jenkins and Fischbach attracted my attention for one reason. Nuclear disintegration are said to be random and impervious to anything. But every other spontaneous phenomenon are subjected to the local rate of passage of time!. Nuclear disintegration may be random but its rate should be subject to local time rate.

This is what I was looking for. I understand the relationship of gravity to the rate of passage of time like Unruh.(1) (Below), they are one and the same.

"A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is

that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity,affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time's flowing unequably from place to place."

From this, I was expecting time to run at different rates away from the Sun and nuclear disintegration rates to follow.

This was the basis of a gravitational wave detector I was thinking about... Passing gravitational waves (made of variations of time rate) would change in a specific way the variations in the rate of disintegration of radio-nuclide.... using particle emission time of flight to avoid temporary local time distorsions .... and coincidence detectors for direction ... The question is; how good are we at measuring short time interval? Better than "space" intervals?

Marcel,

Forgot the reference (1) to Unruh article. Here it is.

(1) arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993

Marcel,

Johnatan

My be h= 1.054x 10^-27g x sm^2/sec is 2-Dimensional quanta of the Universe wrapped in 3-Dimensional Space.Hint to Holographic universe...?

Yuri

Tom,

just stumbled upon this-

You wrote "If it were possible for any physical influence -- including gravity -- to propagate faster than the speed of light, it would also be possible to observe action at a distance simultaneously affect two or more spacetime separated cosmic events and we would be able to observe this correlation."

If the two events are separated by space-time then they are not seen as they were at the same time but a fabrication has been formed in which the two time separated events appear to be co-occurring in space-time. Even if the communication happens instantaneously, there will be a delay between that observed event. That's because of the space-time separation which means the two locations are not being seen at simultaneous times. The observed image is not a perfect replica of what is happening to the objects because of the distortion caused by the speed of light limitation. That's what I think anyway.

Hi Georgina,

You wrote, "Even if the communication happens instantaneously, there will be a delay between that observed event."

No. "Instantaneous" means that the two events are observed to be simultaneous. It doesn't happen, because all physical influences are communicated at less than the speed of light, making all events observer-dependent; i.e., there is some spacetime separation between any two events, such that observers in each inertial frame interpret the time of each event incident differently, and each interpretation is valid. There is no lapsed time for simultaneous events, just as there is no lapsed time between the endpoints of a beam of light.

Tom

Tom maybe I'm confused. How can *images* be -both- separated in (space-) time and observed to be -simultaneously- affecting each other i.e. happening at the same time?? I don't think they can but that doesn't mean there definitely isn't faster than light communication between the *objects*. It seems to me the separation of the images is more of a problem than the communication speed between the objects.

A question that comes to my mind is; Can the shape of the (medium of)space be changed faster than light can travel through it? If it can then there is the possibility that a phenomenon could be communicated faster than light speed.

Georgina,

You ask, "A question that comes to my mind is; Can the shape of the (medium of)space be changed faster than light can travel through it?"

What medium? Light propagates in a vacuum.

"If it can then there is the possibility that a phenomenon could be communicated faster than light speed."

That's how the worm creatures in Herbert's *Dune* series traveled faster than light -- they 'folded' space under the influence of some chemical. In the real world of relativity, however, space is not a physically real phenomenon independent of time; length contraction and time dilation guarantee that proper time seems to pass at the same rate for every observer everywhere in the universe, such that the laws of physics are uniform. One way to look at it, is that between photons at antipodal points of the universe, there is no duration.

Tom

I thought the first part explained my problem with the idea of seeing something simultaneous when what is seen is also separated by space-time.

The question was just a sort of by the way. I can accept that in the space-time image there is no medium depicted between the images seen. However there is something in space, which it seems is now called the Higgs field (as the Higgs boson I have heard referred to as the quantum of ubiquitous resistance). If there is resistance, and I think there must be to account for inertia, there has to be -something- that resists i.e. not a vacuum.

That absolutely appears relevant Yuri.

It could all boil down to whether light travels as photons or plasmons, but I think there is more to it. From what I recall of your research, there are definitely tie-ins of your work to these new findings,and as Giovanni says above, things are developing quickly in a productive way. Maybe some of the roadblocks to understanding are being removed, and important work that has been held back can get the recognition it deserves.

I will try to get to reading your essay too, and I thank you for leaving your comment here.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

I have developped a scale-invariant 2D theory. It is very basic (I am not a theoretical physicist) but it might give you some ideas. I hope it helps.

You can also find my essay here .

Cheers,

Patrick

Georgina,

"If there is resistance, and I think there must be to account for inertia, there has to be -something- that resists i.e. not a vacuum."

No, there doesn't have to be something else. Petkov's badly neglected essay in the last competition elegantly explained that bodies do not resist their motion. If you re-read it, you should understand why.

Tom

OK Tom, thanks for the suggestion.

Thanks for the great reference!

Read it and enjoyed Patrick.

Thank you for commenting here.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Jonathan

This is additional confirmation of 2D World

http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0030

Yuri

Jonathan

This is additional confirmation of 2D World

http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0030

Yuri