Wrinkles in Spacetime

Black holes represent singularities in space and time, but in aethertime, black holes are not singularities because that is no continuous space and time. There are lots of difficulties with the notions of continuous space and time and the black holes of mainstream science are simply a product of the limitations of these notions.

Presuming that the universe is not infinitely divisible means that the universe is made up of finite aether particles. However, the universe is not therefore made up of empty space that is filled with a finite aether, rather the universe is made up of a finite aether from which the notions of continuous space and time emerge.

A black hole is an object of matter that exists within continuous space and time and the logic of general relativity works only up until the space and time of the event horizon of a black hole, which is its surface.

In the logic of aethertime without continuous space and time, a black hole exists with a discrete mass, a discrete time delay, and an action or motion relative to an observer. Motion in this sense is a matter change that is equivalent to object velocity from which motion through space emerges. Without an empty space to begin with, there is no sense to an inside different from an outside since the entire black hole simply has the discrete property of a single time delay, a single mass relative to an observer, and a single matter change.

Phase coherence is what solves the further information paradox for a black hole that supposes that the information about the objects that make up the black hole simply disappears from the universe. In aethertime, there is a further property of black holes that has no meaning for general relativity. The black hole has the quantum property of phase coherence and it is the phase coherence of a black hole that preserves all of the information of all of the objects that accrete to form a black hole.

With the rather limited notions of continuous space and time, the way that a black hole spins is what captures all of the information of the objects it accretes along with black hole mass, time delay, and matter equivalent velocity.

Steve D,

Thanks again. You ask how it might be possible to reconcile time at two different scales. I can offer some insight to that question. Take Euler's Equation and multiply it by the exponential form of a quaternion. I will reference "Quaternion Dynamics - Part 1" to give you a starting point. This is a paper posted to Dr Gibb's website viXra.org. If you do an author search on me (Gary D. Simpson) you can find the text.

The exponential form of the quaternion can be expressed as the exponential of a scalar multiplied by a quaternion. When that is multiplied by the complex form of Euler's Equation, it produces an 8 term expression that is a 5-D subset of the octonions.

I have Part 2 ready to post. I am waiting to post it because I plan to use it as my primary reference for the next essay contest and I might need to make some revisions depending upon the topic.

In any event, the exponential of the scalar term allows time to be introduced as a scalar. It is already present as a complex term.

Treating the problem as a 5-D geometry allows me to calculate the diameter of the proton as being 1.668E-15 meter. This is very close to the measured value. Unfortunately, it requires me to commit the heresy of motion with respect to a stationary vacuum. So I am damned if I do and damned if I don't.

John C,

Many thanks. I will keep my eyes open for such a post. In any case, I place my email address on the title page of the papers that I post to viXra ... I have had no problems to date.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Garreth Lisi has worked about E8 and Georgina has worked about theprime quanternion model.I discussed a lot in the pasts with my friend Ray about these extradimensions and the E12 of Ray,I asked me what are these dimensions.I didn't know well these algebras.Lies algebras,Clifford,Hopf,Magma...)all these Tools are relevant in fact and intresting when they are well utilised with the good récurrences,limits and domains.Thanks for the links,I am going to learn more.The fractalisation of a pure 3D can be made it seems tome if we consider the serie of spherical volumes,this serie is a finite serie for the stable primordial serie,quant and cosm.Several constants can appear between these volumes.We could even find the volume of the central BH of our universe.

:)How are your fingers ? Don't forget to repeat the gamuts and Hannon exerises .:)bEST Regards

I really should stop since I really agree with what you are saying, but you still disagree with my terms.

Now you say that there are objects and change and we can measure those changes. I agree.

When I send a pulse of light to an object and see it reflected back, that is a change and I call that change time delay.

When I measure a change in the atomic line position of an object, that is a change and I call that change a mass equivalent velocity or motion.

So you can call these changes anything you want, but the notions of continuous space and time are just that--notions. There is only indirect evidence for both continuous space and continuous time from the changes we observe for objects. And there is no evidence for space or time having velocities since neither space nor time are objects. I agree. Only objects have velocities.

Your words seem fundamentally confusing to me because I think I agree with you and then you say that I do not. You say that time is not an object. I agree. Then you say that there is no evidence for time having a velocity, which I agree. But since time is not an object, talking about it having a velocity does not make sense to me.

Steve Agnew,

Sorry, I thought this was clear:

"You have no empirical evidence showing that either time or space experience effects. All empirical evidence consists of changes of velocities of objects. There is no evidence for either time or space having velocities."

Neither space nor time have velocities to change so they can have no physics empirical evidence. Physics empirical evidence consists of patterns of changes of velocities. The point is that there is no empirical evidence to support the ideas that space or time experience effects of any kind. Likewise, there is no empirical evidence to support the ideas that space or time cause effects either upon objects or upon each other. There has never been experimentation upon either space or time. Neither space nor time have ever been observed to do anything. The equations of physics do not include terms representing either space or time.

James A Putnam replied on Apr. 4, 2016 @ 19:41 GMT: "With regard to the property of time, it has never appeared directly in physics equations. It has always been substituted for by aspects of object activity. The unit of second, which is customarily referred to as the unit of time, is not a unit of time. It is a unit of object activity."

There has been no change in meaning since my first message: James A Putnam replied on Apr. 2, 2016 @ 23:57 GMT; "Hi Steve, I think that you can give no empirical support for this claim: "Time is just a property of objects and has both the time dimension of an atomic period as well as the time dimension of the decay of those periods. There are no defects in time since time is just a property of objects. There are plenty of defects in space and space is really just convenient representation for the time delays among objects."

Finally I repeat: Thank you for sharing your knowledge and ideas here at FQXi.org. Your messages are always worth reading.

James Putnam

John,

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

There's little respect for relativity -- among both FQXi members and forum participants -- in spite of overwhelming theoretical consistency and experimental validation. If you critically examine past essay winners you'll find they favor mystical concepts, incomplete concepts and ad hoc assumptions of quantum indeterminacy.

Relativity mathematics rests on a simple calculus theorem of continuity, ably expressed by Joy Christian as " ... product of limits = limits of products." here

The continuity of spacetime is not an easy thing to get one's mind around; however, what makes it easier to embrace probability? Quantum mechanics has so many interpretations because the theory allows them. The constraints of relativity are entirely within the postulates. Mathematically complete.

I predict that as understanding of LIGO results becomes stronger, so will the understanding of Minkowski space; i.e., spacetime. Then there will be no non-arbitrary boundary between quantum and classical domains.

Tom,

my pleasure, for what its worth.

"The continuity of spacetime is not an easy thing to get one's mind around;" which must be some sort of truism if one accepts the Planck scale as the physical limit of size. Because while it might be incomprehensibly tiny to our human experience, in comparison to 'infinitely small' it is huge. So either granular non-locality exists down to the infinitely small, interior of a Planck scale particle; or, the same homogeneous, simply connected continuity of spacetime prescribed in field theory exists as the 'stuff' interior of that Planck scale volume. A not so fine a point that gets swept under the rug. :-) jrc

I'm a little unclear as to how these experiments and theories expect to tell the difference between a defect in spacetime and a break in symmetry which might not reach parameters precipitating a virtual particle. Would that be considered a real defect, or recognizable as a simply 'less than limit' condition?

John,

It's worth a lot. :-)

There's a different way to interpret the Planck limit. If one wishes, one can describe any measurement in terms of Planck units. There's nothing mysterious in this; one may always impose a unit of arbitrary length and count the units. The significance of the Planck length is that it's independent of any particular scale.

This does nothing to the physical argument of spacetime continuity. If one tries to be so brash as separate space from time in ordinary measure space, the Planck time is simply self-referential to the Planck length. To me, this strongly suggests an extra-dimensional framework of simply connected points to some dimension limit -- based on the arithmetic theorem that a point can be mapped simultaneously to any set of points, provided it is far enough away. There is not 'enough' space to do this, without the added degree of freedom that an extra-dimensional structure provides, nor 'enough' time unless time is a property of spacetime.

Planck limits of all sorts are experimental boundaries that can't be explained until we have a theory of quantum gravity -- and a unitary one at that.

Your question is fuzzy. I get that 'defect in spacetime' = 'break in symmetry', yet what are 'parameters precipitating a virtual particle'? Do you mean black hole conditions? Do you mean 'parameter' as something other than an adjustable variable?

Tom,

that Anon was me, I thought I was still logged in.

no, no... a break in symmetry precipitates a condensate of energy into matter, which you often refer to as diffeomorphis. The outstanding question of course being how do parameters of physical properties correspond to mathematical properties of geometry to result in that break in symmetry in a confluence of events. But also a confluence of events might not reach critical levels of proportion that would break with symmetry, and no discrete volume condition would form. My question was; how do the experimental and theoretical protocols differentiate those conditions from a 'defect' in spacetime? The article wasn't very clear as to what would be deemed defective. jrc

Okay, I think I get it.

"My question was; how do the experimental and theoretical protocols differentiate those conditions from a 'defect' in spacetime?"

They don't. The arguments for and against continuous and discrete spacetime are equally valid. One has to propose what a defect would look like -- perhaps an unexpected change in curvature. Then again, the existence of curvature itself suggests continuous spacetime.

"The article wasn't very clear as to what would be deemed defective."

I don't think Sabine hasn't gotten that far yet.

Tom,

Okay, I'll puzzle over that some. It's all beyond my depth but I don't have a problem with a defective universe. Continuous spacetime isn't as much of a head warp for me as is discrete spacetime, what's that? How would spacetime be infinitely multi-connected? For me, energy and spacetime are inseperable and density is a function of velocity. Yet symmetrically, light velocity is an absolute limit because that is the natural limit of action in a time parameter. A zero boundary condition could exist as a minimum energy density where time exists at c and no spatial motion were therefore possible. So while connectivity of spacetime would still exist beyond that zero boundary, the inertial connectivity of the energy condensate would be dependent on a maximum density proportionate to the total energy content within the zero boundary. And that inertial connectivity is what we call gravity. Rather than being the weakest force, gravity is the manifestation of all the energy content inertially connected in that boundary and is exponentially greater by virtue of density at smaller scales. The strong nuclear force might be just that, gravity.

I'll stop blithering, I don't often try to express these notions though they work okay in some simple math, but I know its rather conjectural and conventionally heretical. Have you had a look at Gary Simpson's 'Quaternion Dynamics' paper? goto viXra.org; click: all submissions; then tab authors go and a google search list appears with the title line. click that and then scroll down to the 'referrences' and click the viXra link and it should give you the html. Might have to hunt around a bit. It's over my level and presented mostly in matrix signage but you would follow it, and it is a precursor to a 5D rationale he is preparing. That I find intriguing, and while he sees it as failing by dependence on a fixed background, the fifth D could be fixed not to a background co-ordinate but to the notion of symmetry of c being the absolute time limit of my blither above. He's more on your level than I and you might enjoy some dialogue instead of diatribe for a change. :-) jr

Tom,

JRC has suggested that you might be able to elaborate upon the subtle distinction between dimension 4 in GR vs dimension 4 in QM. If so, please do. I have read the other recent posts here and you seem to be alluding to the answer but have not explicitly stated it. Also, JRC suggests that you might wish to correspond privately. If so, my email is gsim100887@aol.com.

Steve D.,

Actually, my hands and fingers are sore but I am improving. At least I can smoothly play 1/16'th notes now. Practice, Practice, Practice.

All,

I'm a little surprised that no one has challenged me regarding the claim of being able to calculate the size of the proton. In QED, this is almost impossible to do but I claim to have done so and I used a very simple equation.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Gary,

I am actually quite curious about your proton determination. And what you have given as a diameter is in the ballpark of a base radius of a unitary field determination of my own. Is there a metaphysical model to your proton that would be something like 'a wrinkle of spacetime' that has curled up on itself?

Or; is it a material body separate and unequal in spacetime? I try not to go too far off the topic path but like everybody else can't resist pursuing tangent ideas. What's this proton of yours look like. In unitary (or unified) field metaphysics, its the neutron that poses the biggest problem. :-) jrc

Hello Tom and John,

Jonh,you say that gravity is just that the nuclear force.There are several problems in fact.Fisrt the gravitation is a different force than with our standard model.This gravity tends to infinity and it is the sweakest force.The nuclei encode, let's assume that simply protons encode bosons.Now imagine that more we go towards the central singularity for the stable primordial codes.So we have in logic an increasing of volumes.But not for the particles encoded.Now imagine that we have a kind of relative same system than our quantum serie with stars and B.So we see two aethers, at the two scales.So we see in fact that the standard model is encircled by the BH and particles of gravitation,the dark matter for me the spherons.At the two scales, relativelly speaking.It is theer that it becomes relevant considering my équations if they are correct.Gravitation must be different that our actual standard model with electromagnetic forces ,heat and thermo.Gravitons are not possible in this line of reasoning because they are bosons.The particles of gravitation aren't produced by stars simply but by an other thing not baryonic.That is why thr BH are sphères in logic implying a gravitational aether ,a sphere more important than our luminerous aether.The Nuclear forces are the more important spherical volumes for the electromagnetism, not gravitation.It is not possible.The central cosmol sphere is intriguing.Dimensions are just a fractal of volumes John.Regards

Try my équations with different mathematical methods by computing with the serie of spherical volumes for the diameters.Perhaps simply it exists a correlation with our sun and our protons.......More far,we have the BH.

ps:) Garry always indeed practice ,don't forget the words at the first page of the Hannon methos.1% of inspirations and 99% of transpiration :)

Dark energy for me is the push at the instant zero of the physicality.A spherical gravitational expansion instead of a BB.Dark matter is not baryonic and is in my model produced by BH.These particles of gravitation are encoded also in our nuclei like the bosons photons in our standard model but differently.That is why the quantum of gravitational energy is different than a photonic quantum of E.Space in my model does not exist because the gravitational aether implies the speedest linear speed but also the smallest spherons produced by the central singularity of the universal sphere.So space does not exist because the spherical volumes decrease from this central cosm sphere.

The standardоЂЏmodel is encircled by BH and spherons like our cosmological scale relativelly speaking.E=mcВІ+mlВІ and mlosV=constant can help for the spherical volume and the 3 motions of sphГЁres.encircles the standard model with one system of quantum BH gravitationally stable and primordial encoding the spherons produced by BH.The spherons are this weakest force.More a BH is important , more the particle produced is small and speed.That is why the universal sphere does not turn and the central BH turns the slowest.

I must test of course , but it seems rational.These BH are essential dark matter and gravitation also.We need to explain them.The special relativity is correct but gravitation is speeder and smaller considering the linear quantum sphГЁres before encoding.This gravitation cannot be baryonic and Under our standard model, it is not possible considering an universal analyse for the future travel Inside this universal sphere.Best Regards dear Jedis of the SPHERE:)

Steve,

Believe it or not, I'm trying to steer towards the topic of 'Wrinkles in Spacetime' and what a 'defect' therein might be. So while I can recognize you have been wrestling with the topological paradigm in an effort to package the observable universe, and the simply connected 3sphere provides an expandable wrapper, I do have trouble understanding what you are trying to say. You have been able to overcome some of the language barrier to the rather sloppy English common these days and I am as guilty as anybody in being lazily monolingual.

But if I'm getting this correctly, you seem to subscribe to the idea that gravitation is a different kind of energy than electrostatic and magnetostatic fields, and hold with the idea that a gravitational field can extend to infinity without explaining how that could be possible without the finite quantity of energy in that field becoming so spread out as to become infinitesimally weak everywhere in that infinite volume of space.

What I've tried to say, is that just as time and space are intrinsically bound and indistinguishable at the foundational level, so is energy intrinsically bound up with spacetime. And that it is only due to the aggregate of vast numbers of self-gravitational material particles of energy condensed into matter that results in the apparent weakness of the gravitational field. Gravitation must be treated as a function of the time parameter, and where time is compressed into smaller volumes it operates more slowly. An object would have to traverse the same amount of time in a region of high energy density in a tiny volume, as that same object would traverse in a region of low energy density in a much larger volume. This does not mean there cannot be an empirically determined minimum density necessary to maintain connectivity of the physical energy. If we accept Mach's Principle in general without being too purist, the behavior of energy can range from inelastic to aetherial as a coefficient function of velocity determining density. And a greater energy density will exhibit and translate the characterists of a lower density but not vice versa. Gravity is observable in the magnetic behavior, the electrical behavior and the kinetic behavior of matter, but those characteristics are not observable at distances where the energy density only translates gravitational characteristics. And the lower the density of energy the more it melds one inertial domain with others expanding into the observed macroscopic domains.

I have long subscribed to a school of thought in Condensed Matter Physics that anything we might call particulate matter is A Wrinkle In Spacetime that curls up on itself. I like to quip it as Big Rock Candy Mountain. There is simply too much energy created by the stress of spacetime than there is room enough in the universe for it to exist at any given time at a density it seeks at light velocity. We live in a quantum universe because foundationally it is in an energy supersaturate state, and the 2.76 Kelvin CMB is the ambient level of compression which requires matter to condense from energy to conserve space.

That being said; a *defect* whether causally or probabilistically would be when something that could, should or would happen, simply doesn't. Or pops up when there's no reason against all probability. C'est la vie. jrc