Alternative Models of Reality

Gary,

"I can propose a physical mechanism for length contraction"

You can, but that would be incorrect. Length contraction is a logical consequence of Einstein's 1905 postulates, and one has no right to add anything that is not deducible from the postulates. This is the essence of the deductive approach.

For the same reason one cannot add "granularity" to spacetime but Sabine Hossenfelder and Sean Carroll could't care less.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

I did not need the postulates of SR to propose the mechanism. In only needed conservation of energy for a Rutherford atom.

BTW, the Rutherford model of the atom was presented in 1911. SR was presented in 1905 (you know this I'm sure). Therefore, Einstein did no have the benefit of Rutherford's work when SR was developed.

As I stated in a previous post, I am asking you to think about this problem in a different way. A rehash of postulates goes nowhere.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Hi William,

Thanks for your answer. The motivation for the vibration model is to provide a working classical description that fits Stern Gerlach apparatus experimental results without the need for impossibly large amounts of hidden variable data to be carried or impossibly high spin. With a working classical model it isn't necessary to accept spooky action at a distance -rather a mechanism is provided whereby the particles communicate their own states to the environment they encounter and 'precipitate' the outcome themselves. Interestingly they are a classical superposition prior to the provocation of the Stern Gerlach apparatus acting to give a preferred orientation that remains after the test, so a same test will give same outcome again.

I think its simplicity is something in its favour. I don't need to rewrite a lot of particle physics to support it. By vibration I do mean an oscillation back and forth along an imaginary line. I don't currently have a why for that but will just call it intrinsic, as spin is currently considered an intrinsic property in mainstream physics. The way the phase of the oscillation is encountered on either side gives a good reason for there being no magnetic mono-poles (Maxwell equation 3).

I have described how the alignment of the phase can give magnetism of a magnet. This following thought is not in that preciously attached paper: If a potential difference causes alignment of the magnetic moment perpendicular to the flow of change, electron oscillation will be perpendicular to it, making me wonder whether that 'synchronized' transverse motion can account for the propagation of electrical energy far faster (near light speed) compared to the slow charge movement under the influence of the potential difference.The transverse orientation of the magnetic moment and alignment of opposite side phases will also give the magnetic field going around the wire.

Evidence favour of quantum vibration rather than quantum spin.(I'd like to hear arguments against.)

Quote: "Spin is a bizarre physical quantity. It is analogous to the spin of a planet in that it gives a particle angular momentum and a tiny magnetic field called a magnetic moment. Based on the known sizes of subatomic particles, however, the surfaces of charged particles would have to be moving faster than the speed of light in order to produce the measured magnetic moments. Furthermore, spin is quantized, meaning that only certain discrete spins are allowed. This situation creates all sorts of complications that make spin one of the more challenging aspects of quantum mechanics." Kurt T. Bachmann of Birmingham-Southern College quoted in scientific American

Hund's rule: Electrons are repulsive to one another and only pair after all the orbitals have been singly filled. (via chemphys.armstrong.edu)

The vibration model allows the electrons within the proximity of the same orbital to be continually moving, at the same rate, and the electrons to be maximally separated over a complete phase of movement. Spin does not give the same intuitive separation /avoidance picture of what is happening. Spin doesn't really provide a comparable 'mechanism' of avoidance and has the speed problem.

Hi all, I think this may better describe what I mean about orientation and relative phase 'state' of electron vibration. I'm sorry its hand drawn curves and so a bit untidy but conveys the ideas I think.

Comments? Corrections?Attachment #1: electron_pair_vibration.png

The curves are showing electron behaviour over time rather than representing electron particles themselves. That wasn't clear on the labels. The roughness of the curves is just due to how the diagrams 'evolved' and isn't symbolic.The vertical axis of the curves is one dimension of space and the horizontal time. The flip following the rotation is just about the representation, keeping it consistent. If the behaviour is rotated, it is just rotation in space so the flip allows the direction of the representation of passage of time to point the same way; making comparison easier. The first two curves also illustrate the way in which electrons can largely avoid each other in a same orbital while constantly moving. The smaller curves are showing the opposite movement of a pair along a second dimension of space as in an entanglement experiment.

A thought: Maybe on larger than than single electron scales spin can produce a magnetic moment because the vibration of the free electrons align perpendicular to the orientation of spin and thus the magnetic moment is produced, but for a single electron there is no other electron vibration to align its orientation with so causal spin is not needed to account for the magnetic moment. Overcoming the impossibly high intrinsic spin requirement issue.

"FASTER THAN LIGHT" in Two Modes of Motion

While we all agree that "In the universe nothing could move faster than light", there are objects, galaxies, stars, planets... moving faster than light at the edge of the expanding Universe. Why?

Because we have two different modes of motion, with different effects, that cause the objects in movement to receive different physical consequences:

1- The object moves by itself.

2- The object moves within another moving object, or inside an environment that is in motion.

https://www.academia.edu/33316019/_FASTER_THAN_LIGHT_in_Two_Modes_of_Motion

Hello FQXi members

What is the reality of nature?

I am a independent researcher who has studied the theory of relativity for a long time. I was not certain on the validity of theory of relativity. Therefore, I have investigated the logical structure of this theory by myself for the last four years. It was an extensive and demanding works, which included many aspects such as language, mathematical logic and set theory, philosophy, theoretical physics, and experimental physics. You can see my research at

https://philpapers.org/profile/481726

I'd like to find a way to review my research and discuss with others about the reality of nature. Please help me with this matter.

Hi Joosoak Kim,

I am not a member but I took a quick look at your profile page that introduces some of your thoughts.

Quote "The reasonable geometric model of space and time is a three dimensional space which is translating along the time direction. This model legitimately represents the true characteristic of nature." Can you please elaborate on What moving along the time direction means to you? Since it is not a spatial dimension in what sense does it have direction?

Joosoak Kim,

I think you might enjoy and find common ground in this essay On the Impossibility of Time Travel by J. C. N. Smith.The essay can be opened from that page.

The Making of Universe

For a while, I strongly believed in the Big Bang Theory of Monsignor Georges Lemaître that describes the birth of the Universe as follows:

"The Universe began from a single primordial atom that contained all of its matter and radiation--even space and time themselves - which was compressed into a hot, dense mass just a few millimeters across. Then came the explosion, the Big Bang, in trillion- trillionth of a second, expanding that pebble- size origin to astronomical scope! And after approximately 13.8 billion years, the primordial atom became the Universe as we know now." (Wikipedia)

I started doubting "Big Bang" and changed my mind when I found out that the Creator has made zillion of universes like ours with the same method that required way less complicated, incomprehensible process than the Georges Lemaître's.

https://www.academia.edu/33512905/The_Making_of_Universe

Darwinian Universal

The nature of the interaction between space and matter, what causes gravitational acceleration? is a question forefront in people's minds. But also the nature of the universal orders we observe, atomic and cosmological structures being very non-random and articulated. I will speak briefly to these now, but please bear in mind that I can corner these considerations with diverse justifications, if you should seek to test?.

In simplest terms. What is the nature of the interaction between space and matter? The one we are going to consider now is arguably the simplest conceptual possibility. That Tuv (matter) is embedded in, and in the business of "metabolizing" a field of Guv (space). Guv and Tuv share equality, so it would make sense in terms of an energy transfer and conversion flowing from space to matter. So A. where does this Guv energy potential originate from? and B. what is it converted into that explains atomic process? A. Space possesses a cosmological expansive property which takes its measure as Auv cosmological redshift, which enables us to speculate that space that is metabolized by matter is a renewable resource. B. Conventional theory does not attribute a cause for the work actions of the fundamental forces, so we speculate that the energy potential derived from Auv space is converted to the mechanical actions of Gluons and Photons, and both taking their measure as magnitudes of velocity C.

Summarizing

Cosmological Auv represents the emergence rate of a universal energy field, which is then metabolized by matter on a local basis represented by the equation Guv = Tuv, enabling the atomic mechanical actions attributed to Gluons and Photons. So this is a really simple conceptualization, and an effective test would be to ask, do the following values possess equality, Auv = Guv = Tuv? Yes they do.

Thats so far pretty brief and simple. I've put forward a hypothesis which relies on the extraordinary equality of various universal measures as evidence. But also provides an appealing chain of cause and effect that takes us beyond the notion of photons and Gluons being fundamental force. The theory of fundamental force being that of "force without a prior cause". The idea that Gluons and Photons are energy conserved systems, which somehow perform "work" functions as by-product, is aesthetically displeasing. It ascribes to theory of causeless work, and the actions of electron bonds being good example. Electron bonds manifest a property we can appreciate at the human scale of existence, evident as the glue that binds objects together. We can directly sense these bonds as we wrap our hands around objects and apply force against them, which hold resistant against our efforts. How can their persistent resistance to your forceful actions, be described in terms other than that of "work action"? We need to move past the notion of "causeless work actions".

In addition to this, I will briefly mention a prospective explanation for atomic and cosmological structure, order, complexity, fine tuning. The code for which is written in photon and Gluon mechanics, a product of a long standing Co-evolution between two universal elements, Auv and Tuv. Auv being a regenerative elemental field of space, and the elemental aspect of Tuv being the Photons and Gluons that form the material universe.

This hypothesis paints Auv as a regenerative field, and it can be speculated that anything that is continually regenerative, is capable of compounding changes, evolving, advancing its physical state. Tuv (matter) also demonstrates a capacity suggestive of re-generation, in the form of quark separations that generate identical copies of themselves. Not conceptually dissimilar to biological cellular divisions, which we understand leads to compounded changes we identify as Darwinian process. The standard theory of matter synthesis holds that photons created by a big bang event will spontaneously condense and precipitate to form atoms. This prescribes a whole lot of givens without adequate explanation. Atoms are wonderfully complex articulated machines, their properties evidenced by the universe they collectively build, including the form that makes you. The "given" that you must currently except for lack of an alternative explanation, is that "this can occur purely on basis of chance". However that is no longer the case as of the realizations presented here within, that allows for compounded changes to occur, leading to ever increased levels of complexity and fine tuning, an explanation for the world around us.

This hypothesis brings to mind a scenario whereby the universe first emerges as a simplest possible configuration field quanta, and through continual regeneration compounded changes, evolved through ever shifting circumstances that eventuated as the universe we observe. A scenario like this might not easily come to mind, however I have begun to uncover a possible interpretation which can be judged for merit. And there is a persuasive case that can be made that the structure of the universe we observe around us, is evolved optimally for a purposeful interaction between space and matter, in terms of matter being spread out across space, optimized for atmospheric interaction.

I opened this post with a question towards the nature of the interaction between space and matter. And I wouldn't really be doing the subject justice without prescribing cause, the motivation for gravitational acceleration. The main aspect of the puzzle of gravity, that holds us all spellbound. The before mentioned prescribes a scenario whereby natures forces are mediated via Photons and Gluons, which are enabled via a process of metabolism of the Auv elemental field of space. This being the case, it informs us where the motivation for universal force originates, and how it is mediated and subsequently expressed. The conventional take is that the strong nuclear force and gravity are two independent forces or phenomenon. But that ignores the rather obvious association between the two, that Gluons are the strong nuclear force from which mass is an emergent property, and it is the mass that responds to gravitational fields. So it is basic deduction that the (strong nuclear force) (Gluons) and (Mass) are all representative of one and the same property of matter. It is Gluonic Mass that both responds to gravitational fields and also possesses the capacity to mediate force, which is expressed as gravitational acceleration. In simplest terms, Gluons mediate the force that causes gravitational acceleration. If you want to qualify this possibility, then study the similarities that are known to exist between Gluons and Photons, and ask the question (if Photons can express motion, then could it be that Gluons can also express motion via the same general mechanism as Photons?

These associations are made trivial within the wider context of the theory I refer to as Darwinian Universal, which theorizes that the differences between Photons and Gluons are mainly that of structural complexity, from which Gluons manifest the additional emergent properties of matter, being mass, nuclear and molecular bonds, heat process etc. Gluons that form matter are evolved Photons. My contest essay, which I should have titled Darwinian Universal, elaborates beyond what I have mentioned here.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2890

I would like to engage this subject with the FQXi community please? I propose that my essay discussion page would be the right place to hold such a discussion, so I invite you to join me there please? Nobody would stumble across it otherwise, so I'll sprinkle a couple of these invitations around the forum. Please keep in mind that I will only be notified of your reply, if you post at my essay page.

Thank you kindly for your considerations

Steve

Darwinian Universal

I'm very pleased with the reviews my essay received, and for the community score that tallied. However I havent engaged with the community in discussions about it yet, either in a sense that might test it or allow me to elaborate further. I have added a post to my essay thread titled Darwinian Universal, which presents an explanation for why the concept of fundamental forces is flawed, in terms of being considered an energy conserving system which undertakes perpetual work effort. Electron bond persistency in binding matter for example. Having framed it in terms of what conventional approach is conceptually missing, I then present a solution in terms of my concept. That the question of what the nature of the interaction is that exists between space and matter that would marry quantum mechanics and general relativity, is the same question as "what is the prior cause for the fundamental forces that enables their work effort?. I propose that photon and gluon activity is the product of the interaction with space, and this is why the terms of Guv and Tuv share equality. Its an energy transfer and conversion. So matter being in the business of consuming an elemental field of space that enables photon activity, dictating the rate of causality which we interpret as time. This is how it corresponds to the theory of spacetime.

This raises the question, if space is a resource matter is dependent on to maintain activity, then how can the resource remain persistent over time. Why is it not finite and subject to depletion? Auv cosmological emergence of space to the rescue. I cannot present the physics that would answer the how of Auv's continual emergence, but I can point to the observation and values attributed to its emergence, and the equality they share with universal values of Guv and Tuv. That their equality is highly suggestive they share a relationship that is causal. That Auv is a renewable resource which enables photon activity, and that Auv and Tuv are both elements of a universal system that allows for compounded changes and evolved purposeful structure and complexities to emerge. That all the activities on both atomic and cosmological scales, are evolved and optimized for their reason for existence, which is for efficiency of interaction between the Auv elemental field of space, and Tuv matter.

This theory prescribes cause, purpose and meanings to aspects of the world where there has been nothing of the sort presented before. I would like the opportunity to demonstrate to people that this concept is deserving of discussion. Are you willing to join me please and help me kick it off? I will be holding the discussion on my essay page thread.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2890

Thank you for your consideration

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Give nature an energy potential and it will invent a Darwinian circumstance of emergence. Take early oceanic life for example, algae invented a way to exploit the suns energy in a process known as Photosynthesis, which then founded the base of a food chain that blossomed through a diversified range of organisms of increasing levels of character and complexity. Krill that eat the algae, in turn eaten by small fish, eaten by bigger fish and squid, eaten by tuna, sharks, birds, dolphins and whales.

Auv cosmological emergence is a like circumstance of Darwinian emergence, as a result of an as yet unidentified natural energy potential. Like the algae, this Auv elemental field of space foundations the base of a system that has compounded ever higher levels of universal order and complexity, in the form of atomic and cosmological structure. This is how elaborate Gluon and photon characteristics have emerged in the universe, and the circumstance whereby their activity is enabled by a metabolism of an Auv elemental field of space.

Loops, braids and Knots approach is forming a dynamical existence model where the "big bang" is just the initial setup while the existential evolution is still going on ...

I recent weeks I had started to read "Approaches to Quantum Gravity", edited by Daniele Oriti. A quite expensive (166 €) but very good book, worth every single Euro.

Especially remarkable is the introduction written by Carlo Rovelli, title: "Unfinished Revolution". And indeed, this is true in a doubled sense: it is a revolution and it is unfinished.

Rovelli tends quite well to a more fundamental approach where the physical heuristics is not just based on the evolution of understanding of our math based tools.

The second article I want the refer to is the one of Olaf Dreyer called "Emergent relativity".

Olaf Dreyer refers to macroscopic systems as internal relative in the sense that they establish the framework of space-time just by the relation of events to each other, so space-time is not existent for the single particle but is emergent with bigger quantum systems.

Olaf Dreyer start's with the only prerequisite of "coherent degrees of freedom", a setting that constitutes an external framework where the "internal" system is embedded in, so that it can't view it's embedding in an exterior system.

So, there is an isolation between the embedded / created system and the embedding / creating system.

This is quite fundamental and I had developed a similar approach where I coined these degrees of freedom "unoccupied potentials" or "UP".

Those unoccupied potentials are isolated in a way that we can not define an universal associativity between those potentials, but possibly they define a topology.

The "UP" belong to a system (maybe a multiverse or an embedding reality of unknown nature) that does not "use" functionally those potentials in the way that they are stable enough to organize towards a new, functional decoupled system, which is our universe or other universes.

Let's denote the set of the components of our world, created by that process "N".

Let us call the set of the unoccupied potentials "D", let us call the probability space of the evolution of the parts of N "A".

We can call A the "quantum level".

Let us now define a function set F = H + G, where H maps N->A and G maps N->D.

D->A->N is something like the "big bang", a fundamental cosmological event, where N is created. It marks the advent of universal associativity.

As you already know (I wrote it here for some times):

N=F{A,D} =H{A{D}} + G{D}, (equation 1)

where N_h = H{A{D}} (equation 1.1)

... and:

N_g = G{D} (equation 1.2)

"Relativity" in the sense of relativistic behavior is encoded within such a setting in the part G{D}.

It comes up always if the "delta N" affects D, the set of the unoccupied potentials (v->c, mass and energy concentration) insofar dependent from N.

Or if the D acts back on N in the "rare" case that one or more unoccupied potential of the infinite "UP" will become occupied (by the embedding reality / multiverse again) and the d_i "d element D" will fall out of the equation 1.

This can be seen as infinitesimal dynamics on the one hand (mathematically), but it is a sort of entropy of the existence giving system "UP" (physically) by shrinking or expanding D by some more or some less d_i (element of D).

The average setting of the "UP" with regard to creations and removals of those infinitesimal elements + / - d_i is in my model responsible for the specific setting of the cosmological constant.

And now, quite suddenly, time:

t = N_h / N_g = H{A{D}} / G{D} (equation 2)

The functions N_h and N_g must have some "topological support" -that can be make more dense further to algebraic structures - on the unoccupied potential "UP" in order to get functionally connected via sub-algebras.

This means:

Although we have no general associativity between the elements of the "UP", there are "rare" / "finite" cases where elements or sets of elements can fit together anyway. These cases could be algebraic in their nature or just mapped that way.

"Finite" could mean something like the possible baryon count for our universe of 10 exp 80.

The back-reaction of the created system composed of {N}, basically isolated from the creating system based on {D}, towards the creating system via another mechanism / an alternative topology, that is the essence of models like this.

The map:

X = D->[f]->N->A

... is different from:

Y = N->A->[g]->D.

Both maps, X and Y are maps that are creating relativistic effects.

Y by movement -> c and acceleration, X by mass concentration locally as gravity and globally by the change of Kappa, the cosmological constant.

We can possibly define another map Z, that looks like:

Z= N->[m]->A->D

..., which describes a case, where a "macroscopic configuration change" effects coherently the particle / quantum level and by this induces a process / map "A->D", which is a non-local process with many a_i "element A" involved.

And if any configuration in N realizes the map Z, then the function "m" can modify D, say: we are acting back onto the level or creation or existence. As we know nothing about this system, such a back reaction would probably create just a sort entropy, that is gravity.

An example for this could be NASA's QThruster or EMDrive or my proposal for a Gyropeatron.

The bases for such processes is non-locally "coherent" quantum activity, such that the underlying virtual quantum processes (VQP) are not arbitrary but in a certain correlation, thus inducing a chain of virtual quantum activity ("VQA") that acts "coherent" back on D. For the QThruster this result in a setting, that produces micro-gravity.

So, the narrative that Quantum Gravity is only an issue at or near the Planck scale, do possibly not hold in those special cases of "coherent VQA" where it QG could come around already at the micro scale and subsequently is in our technological reach if we can transform quantum processes to UP-coherence.

In order to get this done, we have to listen to that process first, we have to "listen" at quantum processes first.

Of course, this back-reaction to D is to define in greater detail and clarity. Possibly we can coin Olaf Dreyer' s "coherent degrees of freedom" this way more detailed using this conceptual route.

Some thoughts about Dark matter in the "UP" / internal relativity context:

If we change our equation one as follows to a multiverse setting:

N_n=F_j{A_m,D_i} =H{A_m{D_i}} + G_j{D_i}, (equation 3),

... and the X_h, Y_k and Z_p are describing the respective maps in all universes of the multiverse.

We want to suppose that the UP's of those universes are separated, but not completely, so there is possibly an intersection I_d off all D_i which is subject to all maps X_h, Y_k and Z_p.

According to our above described relativistic model all X->I_d, Y->I_d and Z_I_d are creating in this case relativistic effects in all universes, contributing that way the missing amount of mass that can contribute to the gravitational settings of the galaxy's.

Knots and Loops Model:

One can imagine this construction by a geometric-algebraic - where the geometric parts supports our intuition and the algebraic parts make it mathematically concrete - model of Loops, Braids and Knots while the knots are arising from the loops and then feeds back partially to the loop (G{D}) and moreover creating secondary loops, forming braids that are transporting and exchanging energy.

The loop is represented by D / UP and the knot is representing N, the general n-fold. The knot (which represents essentially matter) is not purely local, it is connected by other loops and braids with other knots.

The knot is represented by a sub-algebra over D, which is picking certain elements k_j out of D into N.

The whole mechanism is about Entropy and Information, which are forming a system in an "active state of existence".

This model is describing "existence" as a dynamical process which could have initial bursts ("big bang") but then evolves further in interaction with the base of existence as well as with the created function set in the shape of a "universe" over D.

So:

E{D} = K{D} + B{D} - I{D} (equation 4)

G{D} = K{D} + B{D} (equation 5)

and:

E{D} = G{D} - I{D} (equation 6)

where:

+ E{D} is the overall entropy going back to the loop / D,

+ G{D} is positive entropy expressed withing N as gravity,

+ K{D} is the knot, representing matter components,

+ B{D} is the braid and

+ I {D} represents information.

Thus E{D} represents the overall entropy brought back on D / UP, where is G{D} is the source of gravity, subtracted by the information I{D}, coming from the knots.

If E{D} works "coherent" back to D, (which is the case for E{D} < 0, so I{D} > G{D}, the d_i count will increase and Kappa, the cosmological constant, will be negative, the universe will expand.

If G{D} > 0, which implies G{D} > I{D}, the d_i count will decrease, kappa will grow and the universe will shrink.

Parts of the outgoing loops from the knots are branching into other loops, forming ("energy-like") braids.

Physical interactions in general (except gravity) are going also via braids in the loops.

Loops between some knots are closed while loops over many knots are producing themselves knots, then representing an inertial system.

Knots in general are increasing the entropy of the loop because they extracting "information" from the loops ("D").

But if the knots are feeding the extracted energy into other loops which are creating themselves knots, then they could act back coherently to D, which is I{D}.

I{D} is always coming from equipping loops with a knot, which have to be for that purpose in a coherent state, which means that it is stable and represents a function towards D, so D = f(I) or I{D} = - E{D}

This energy is coming back to the Loop / to "D" as entropy, as some of the d_i of the D are branching out into the knot-forming sub-algebra.

to be continued...

Some personal remarks:

I know that this is pretty heavy stuff for some people, maybe especially for whom the world ends with Standard Model, Planck Scale and General Relativity.

What we can think it in principle, what we can describe is the measure for our mind, the outer boundary for what is possible in principle, for what could be possible in principle.

So, we can model completely new aspect of reality but we have to detail it also much more.

This is not only about physics though. It is about deep and so far hidden connections between mathematics and physics. Especially important is the supposed fact, that mathematics is still able to describe the "UP" - the unoccupied potential.

Another thing is the fundamental importance of virtual quantum processes (domain "A") as a layer of systematic "action" (not: "interaction"!) between the UP and our physical world, a layer of reality, where general commutative and associative behavior is not given from the onset.

Equation Z= N->[m]->A->D offers in principle the possibility to address gravity technologically by designing chains of micro-(quantum-) processes, implementing matter-energy-based technological solutions far before the Planck scale, like QThruster / EMDrive is one, opening completely new and hitherto unthinkable technologies.

So, the road map I describe above, is to be seen as a practical way for designing technological systems which are implementing Quantum Gravity practically.

Best regards from Berlin,

Robert Gallinat

Electromagnetism is considered one of the four fundamental forces of nature.

Another force considered as fundamental is the strong nuclear force, for which the Gluon is the mediator, which importantly is the generator of "mass", which is the property of matter which responds to gravitational fields. Or I could have said it like this "The strong nuclear force makes the "MASS" which motivates the gravitational acceleration".

Why do people believe gravity is a forth fundamental force independent of the other three, when clearly the strong nuclear force generates the property of matter "mass" that responds to gravitational fields? Why dont they acknowledge that Gluons mediate the force that drives gravitational acceleration? Because they are not trained as detectives to follow evidentary clues.

But your question is about connecting magnetism to gravity, and it appears I have connected Gluon activity to gravity instead. What you have to realize is that Gluons and electromagnetism (EM) are very very similar entities as one another. So to relate gravitational interaction with EM, I show you that Gluons and EM are closely related.

How are Gluons and EM related? They are related in every way! Electromagnetism is light (photons), and a useful value we can attribute to light is its velocity C. Mass is a measure of Gluon activity, and mass is a very tidy sum multiple of the speed of light kg x C x C. Or famously E=MC2. So it can be said that Gluon activity and Photon activity are correlated via proportionate magnitude of one another. Gluons and Photons also perform very similar roles as one another, in much the same way as one another. Gluons create the bonds which hold the nucleolus together, and photons create the bonds that hold electron bonds together. The theory of charge applies to both the Gluon and the Photon in the mediation of their bond interactions. You can visualize them as operating in very much the same way as one another. I could go on all day long about the similarities between Gluons and Photons, but that should be enough to make my point of their relation.

So anyway, the key point to take home is that Gluons operate very much the same way as light (EM) does. Light can propel itself through the voids of space, so why couldn't Gluons be responsible for a similar capability of generating motion? Gluons generate mass, and mass motivates gravitational acceleration, so this is indeed how it can be interpreted.

Magnetism and gravity are related, because an entity which is very closely related to magnetism, that is to say "Gluons" are the driving force for gravitational acceleration. Simple! Why dont people realize this? Because they are to confused by the idea that somehow the concept of "spacetime" will inform them how, why objects are set to motion. How can time motivate motion? is a question which leads nowhere!

I appreciate what you are saying, and judge you fairly for saying it. You have to appreciate that is only a page of explanation, and so is stated in simple terms. I can provide further justifications. But it is an interesting idea isnt it, that Gluons are much the same as light, and light has the capacity for motion. That Gluons might be the force provider that motivates gravitational accelerations?

I could answer toward your points directly, or I could provide a more interesting explanation from which you could infer the answers you need? Which I will do, but we can always come back to individual points whenever you like.

If you are willing, I would like to discuss the question of the origin of force? Again lets focus on Gluons and photons, which is to say, strong nuclear force and electromagnetic force, whos actions are ascribed to the theory of "Fundamental Forces". Within this context, the word fundamental might be interpreted as a theoretical "first cause". Or force with no prior cause.

There are some basic problems with the theory of "force with no prior cause". It raises the same general criticisms we might have for the notion of perpetual energy machines. But are these same general criticisms rightly directed towards the function of atomic forces? Fundamental forces do a lot of different things, but we want to identify an action which is clearly in the business of undertaking "work action" and therefore cannot be interpreted as energy conserving. So let us focus on EM electromagnetic electron bonds which glues matter together. I select electron bonds because they manifest a property of matter which we can appreciate at the macro scale of human existence, and which we can wrap our own hands around an object, and directly sense the "work effort" these electromagnetic forces are responsible for mediating.

The question is, how can perpetual work effort exist without prior cause? If we try to excuse this situation, as fundamental forces being energy conserved systems, then how do you extract work from such a system without affecting its internal checks and balances?

I know it seams as though I'm leading us toward an intangible circumstance, for which the activities of matter cannot be provided a rational explanation. But I'm not. I'm leading us down a well considered path, which I hope gives reason enough to entertain the novel solution I will provide. It is a solution which prescribes a prior cause for atomic forces, while solving a number of further problems confronting scientific understanding.

Let us consider the possibility that the following two questions have the same answer. What is the nature of the interaction between space and matter, that would marry quantum mechanics and general relativity? and what is the prior cause of atomic forces?

Let us envision, space containing a physical element which matter is in the business of consuming, to enable matters forceful activities. Guv = Tuv is the conventional interpretation of the interaction between space and matter. If it is indeed an energy transfer and conversion to atomic force, then the equality demonstrated of each of these terms bodes well. However, a conceptual challenge to this notion, would be as follows. If space contains an elemental field that is consumed by matter, then wouldn't it be a finite resource that would eventually be depleted? And on the face of it, you might think that presents an end to this conjecture. But it doesnt.

Space isn't only described in terms of Guv. Space also has a property which is described as cosmological expansion, and termed as Auv. For the benefit of this conjecture, I'll ask you to consider the possibility that Auv is a measurement that corresponds to a regenerative process undertaken by an elemental field inhabiting space, which continually replenishes the potential, that in turn drives atomic forces. For this hypothesis to have any prospect, there would have to be a link between the value of Auv (cosmological expansion) and Tuv (atomic forces) that demonstrate an equality. And indeed, such a measure has been known about for many years. Those interested please quiz me?

Auv = Guv = Tuv.

This line of conjecture provides something further. Entities which continually regenerate have the prospect of compounding changes over time and evolving. Generationally compounded change, conceivably can lead simple systems toward heightened levels of order and complexity. The character of structures that evolve in such a system, as exampled by life, can be used to infer the circumstances of their evolution, revealing motives and purpose, which in turn convey reasons and meanings. Does this conjecture lead to an interpretation of universal emergence that explains for its very particular style of order, complexity, fine tuning? It does, and I am part way through the process of uncovering an interpretation of it.

It goes something like this. Give nature an energy potential and it will invent a circumstance of Darwinian emergence which leads to heightened levels of complexity. Whether that is Algae which evolves the ability for photosynthesis, which exploits the freely available natural energy potential of the sun, which then becomes the basis of a food chain that leads to diverse organisms of increasingly complex character. Algae eaten by krill, eaten by small fish, eaten by bigger fish and squid, eaten by tuna, sharks, dolphins and whales. Could this be how all complexities evolve in the world, including atomic and cosmological structure?

Could Auv cosmological emergence be the result of a natural energy potential, ( as yet unidentified physical process), which has lead to a Darwinian cascade that provides circumstance, reason and purpose for the structures, complexity, fine tuning, we observe in the world around us? I am building the case so that people might be able to judge merit. Writing to you now provides me an opportunity for practice.

Dear Theoretical Physicists,

According to the FQXi.website, "If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread..."

I obediently posted my contention that only nature could produce the simplest constructed Universe , therefore, the real Universe must consist of only one singular unified visible infinite surface occurring in one singular infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Please do not remove this entrancing post.

Joe Fisher, Realist

All,

Here is an interesting puzzle for you to ponder.

The attached .pdf file presents a slight variation on conservation of momentum. The puzzle is that the mathematical system is over-specified. There are 6 equations available but only 5 variables to determine. Therefore, one of the equations is either unneeded or redundant.

Discussion/Comments are generally welcomed.

Best Regards,

Gary SimpsonAttachment #1: Momentum_Conservation.pdf