Hi Ray,

Sorry to hear about your unfortunate predicaments last week. Hope the next are better for you.

You say "A courser screw thread transfers longitudinal "change in velocity" faster than a finer thread does." which is interesting point which I had yet to consider. Then you say "But varying field strength requires varying screw threads", but I also see that the flux density of screw threads is more important and could potentially explain all of the variation in field strength perhaps.

I have just modelled the 'threeness' and the toroid helical shape of the protn and neutron. It's a totally mechanical model with the three helical ring donuts interlocked in a dynamic cog configuration. It works extremely well and I'm keen to scan and attach my scribbles showing the structures, but I have to wait until Tuesday when the library opens again.

It will fill in the gaps of my verbal model with much more authority hopefully.

P.S I had the idea of re-scoring the competition with all the low scores upgraded to a respectable 6. This means the top 35 are selected only on their 7 to 10 scores. Sounds fairer to me. What do you think. The 35 already selected can stay eligible for the judging but the new scoring would give a few more for the judges to choose from.

Alan

    • [deleted]

    Hi Alan,

    So you would vary the screw density rather than the screw thread...

    I think that either approach could yield a reasonable mathematical model, but varying screw density might lead to discontinuous field lines. This is OK where spacetime behaves discretely, but not really appropriate for the regions where spacetime behaves continuously.

    On the other hand, continuously varying screw thread could represent a field line (or a string) and a continuous spacetime. The discrete spacetime representation would be the "bolt head" end of the screw - like Lawrence Crowell's and Philip Gibbs' Qubits, and this discrete end of the screw might be spinning (and "twisting" rope) like one of Vladimir Tamari's tetrahedra.

    I think I get your 3-twisted rope torus - it sounds similar to some of Peter Jackson's comments on his thread.

    So you were "Lord Whats-his-name". Sorry, but I don't read that thread anymore - it is so long that it bogs down my browser. There are a lot of ways to tweak the system so that it might work better (but perhaps a popularity contest can never work perfectly). I liked Philip Gibbs' suggestion of treating it like an "American Idol" or "Survivor" type show whereby people are voted off on a regular basis (say 25 essays every week?), and the votes from those who were voted off are discounted (say they only count as half of a vote) relative to the votes from the "surviving" contestants. This might peak interest in the contest a little longer, and might be a fairer cut in that it is several smaller "finer" cuts rather than one giant "coarse" cut. The Judges seem to have full control over the results now, so it might not much matter how many contestants make the final vote - we could have 35 or 50 essays - it is a greater burden on the Judges and will take longer to get results.

    I am still dumb-founded by the fact that someone can fly off the road in a 30 mph (50 kmph) speed zone and hit a truck that was parked in its own driveway and minding its own business...

    I still have two other dogs (my 65 pound/ 30 kg mixed pit-bull-lab year-old "puppy" sleeps with my wife and I), and knew that my older dog had been getting weaker for the past few months.

    Have Fun!

    Dr. Cosmic Ray

    • [deleted]

    Hi Ray,

    I like the idea of a 'head and tail' configuration to the proposed screw-like emissions. It's very similar to advanced programming techniques I seem to remember. It could be more of a 'slinky' like imagery to start with, rather than singular Archimedes screws. Only after the inevitable interactions after emission is the structural helix broken down into smaller discrete units perhaps.

    I don't think you have the image of the 'cogs' I mentioned just yet. This is the interconnection of three donut helix rings, mechanically locked together in one respect. The three rings come together in a circle which will lock-up the spins, so to speak, like putting a spanner in the gears of a piece of machinery. This the neutron configuration. The proton is almost the same, but the shape is a 'U' with the two uprights being the same spinning donut rings which have a common direction of graviton emission. Have a quick think and I'll post the pictures tomorrow morning to see whether you were on the same track.

    Yes, the blog thread is tiresome to say the least, hence the bit of sillyness on my part. It takes sooo long to be able to post anything..The arguments just continue and continue... like science in all of history I suppose. It's down to the judges now, like you say.

    The car accident reminded me of the pick-up truck driver who ploughed into Stephen King (the author) as he walked along the side of the road. Thank heavens it wasn't something as bad as the incident with that drunk driver. Best wishes to your family and dogs,

    Alan

    • [deleted]

    Hi Alan,

    I have to think on it some, but these ideas look wrong to me. With 3 tori, you need 3 different charges (such as red green blue = white) to make these configurations stable - two charges of graviton and anti-graviton won't be sufficient. I was thinking more along the line of a 3-twisted rope that connects with itself on the ends to form a twisted torus.

    Have Fun!

    Hi Ray,

    Okay, it's good that you have a problem with this basic layout. I don't have an indepth knowledge of quark charges or colors and so my models are very abstract still. I have decided to explore the non-twisted torus shapes for a while.

    BTW I had the brainwave that an electron -isn't- a particle which circles the nucleus. This is yet another hangover from Newton's equation imo. It makes more sense to me to imagine that the electron orbit is an effect due to the lensing of a base quark, see attached. Why not imagine a proton creating the electron due to it's lens effect, which forms a focus some 35,000 times further away than it's diameter?

    AlanAttachment #1: 2_Quark_Lens_Creates_Electron.jpg

    • [deleted]

    Hi Alan,

    My experience with physics modeling is that it is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Over the years, I have also had a lot of "interesting" ideas, but I think it is safe to say that most didn't work out exactly the way I expected.

    I'm also having second thoughts about the twisted torus - it would have chirality. Of course we need chirality, but if a model already has chirality through spinning tetrahedra and/or rope, then it doesn't need a second chirality for the torus. On the other hand, I could see a 3-twisted rope torus yielding 3 colors (and an SU(3) Strong force), and its scaled reciprocal yielding 3 generations (and the CKM and PMNS matrices) - similar to some of Edwin Klingman's ideas and my interpretations of his ideas.

    Have Fun!

    Hi Ray,

    Yes, I know what you mean by "interesting" ideas, the first stages are easy in comparison to getting something finalised which is coherent with everything else.

    I don't quite agree on your logic of the problem with two chiralities, but then again I dont't have a good mental image of your proposals. Are you are able to sketch something which represents your ideas of how the tori are arranged within a proton and neutron?

    How do you think the overall experiments of the LHC will turn out? Are you on the side of them finding a Higgs boson? How do you explain the flocking effect seen so far? The simulation in the link is very good I think, and shows the 45 degree angle towards the centre of the ring w.r.t the nucleus-nucleus collision. The proton-proton collision is vertical. How do you account for this discrepancy? It would appear that neutrons are giving this 45 degree effect.

    What percentage do you think that the lensing effect of the proton might create the electron? Or are you convinced that the Bohr-Rutherford model of an orbiting particle is sufficient?

    Cheers,

    Alan

    • [deleted]

    Hi Alan,

    We are focusing on opposite ends of the spectrum. IMHO, quarks and gluons describe protons and neutrons to within about 5% - and that's good enough for this stage of the game.

    Personally, I am more interested in the possibility of a new bosonic force carrier.

    In Section 7.2 of my book, I introduced Hyperflavor-Electroweak - how it solves the problem of all zero quantum numbers for the right-handed neutrino, and how it predicts exotic Z and W bosons.

    Have Fun!

    Hi Ray,

    Thanks for two very intersting links. Philip Gibbs' site looked impressive. There's a new 'bump' at Fermilab which I didn't know about. Okay, I feel a little out of my depth when looking at the latest mainstream thinking. Good luck to you all and every experimental result is useful I guess. I'll continue with my back-to-basics methodology now I've committed myself to it. I'm going to retrace the steps of Pauli's Exclusion Principle. Bye for now,

    Alan

    16 days later

    Ray,

    My friend, I'm sorry about the bad week you've had. It's really hard to put down an animal that been part of the family for 13 years. Easier to replace a truck.

    Yes we traded books. But that's not enough. One must open and read the book. There you will find out it's done with 4 particles and 4 fields.

    BTW, I'm working on removing the 'drama' chapters, and adding a few chapters at the end of the book to show how the 4 percent discrepancy that QED produces for the muonic-hydrogen atom falls out of my model. Tentative name of the new work:

    "Physics of the Chromodynamics War"

    Hang in there friend.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    • [deleted]

    Dear Edwin,

    Oh I'm surviving. Last week, something even worse happened. One of our company's receptionists lost her 16 year-old daughter in a one-car accident. She wasn't wearing her seat belt and her (older type SUV with a history of rollover problems) flipped, she was partially ejected, and killed instantly. She was a star player on her high school softball team, and hoped to get a softball scholarship to go to College and become a Pediatric Nurse. The funeral was full of people (the Church was so full that some people had to sit in the Choir Loft) and full of tears with players from four different softball teams recounting their memories of her.

    I apologize that I never finished your book. However I did read a good bit of your book, and I read your last two FQXi essays. I get distracted too easily... Your theory *COULD* be part of a TOE, but it isn't a complete TOE IMHO. As Lawrence said on another blog, we can't use one theory to disprove another thory. Data and time help to eventually sort out the more complete ideas.

    BTW, have you seen the rumors about the diphoton bump with effective mass of 115 GeV?

    Have Fun!

    Ray,

    I am saddened to hear of that. I have spent the last day happy about a report on the net of a stranger catching a two year old girl who fell from a fourth floor balcony, no scratches or bruises! He works in strange ways His wonders to perform. That why it's called faith, not proof.

    As I mentioned, I'm removing the 'action' and adding new physics to an 'improved version'. You might want to wait.

    I have seen the diphoton bump at 115 GeV. What do you think it is?

    Your very good friend,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    • [deleted]

    Hi Edwin,

    It is where SUSY phenomenologists expect the Light SUSY Higgs. The strength of the diphoton signal is so strong that it doesn't look like a Standard Model Higgs. I suppose it could be a composite Techni-pion that provides a Goldstone origin of mass, but Technicolor has other problems that probably requires SUSY as a solution. The graph at the top of page 30 in this old paper with my colleagues and me shows how a relatively light-weight Light Higgs could exist, while m_1/2 (and most gaugino masses - most Neutralinos and Charginos) remain quite massive. This implies that we need to look closely for the Light Stop Squark.

    The Tevatron has not confirmed this observation, although LEP had gotten to the edge of this region a decade ago, and thought they were on the edge of seeing something. The "leaking" of this paper did not follow protocol, and may or may not stand after the other couple of thousand LHC researchers "sign off".

    I guess data and time will tell...

    Faith keeps us going - Have a Good Easter!

    10 days later
    • [deleted]

    Dear Rafael,

    On Lubos' blog site, you said:

    BEGINNING OF QUOTE

    I've been working on my idea regarding the origin of gravity. If you remember, I mentioned in my FQXi paper the idea of the revolutions of the cosmic systems in a hierarchical cosmos as the origin of gravity. Basically my idea is that the revolutions are the components of the gravitational tensor - which allows me the explanation how quantization occurs and how there is the CMBR. (My 'origin' idea is totally different from Verlinde's entropic idea of gravity.) I have explained this idea quite a bit in my website.

    It looks like the scales 'threshold' may have relevance since this might lead to a clear understanding of how the electric, the magnetic, the nuclear, and all the quantum interactions occur.

    I'd like your explanations regarding the 'quantization process' in relation to the 'scales' that you propone. I am hoping that you can explain how your lattices result in the quantization with a description in clearer physical (mass-energy) units beyond just your usual numerical propositions.

    It would be great if you could explain the nature of your gravitons at the cosmic and the quantum scales and how they come to existence (the origin of gravitons). I am interested in the physics that your mathematics suggest in order to understand the physical relevance of your proposed scales.

    END QUOTE

    MY ANSWERS

    If you study the symmetry structures of Quaternions (H) and Octonions (O), you will see that a Quaternion has 6 anti-symmetric tensor components (the same order as an SO(4)), whereas an Octonion has 10 symmetric (the same order as an SO(5)) AND 10 anti-symmetric tensor components. The Einstein Field Equations of General Relativity are 10 independent rank-2 tensor equations (looks like part of the Octonion tensor content) that can be reduced to 6 independent rank-2 tensor equations (looks like the Quaternion tensor content) by factoring out spacetime coordinates.

    If a physical graviton exists, it doesn't make sense for it to have 6 or 10 degrees-of-freedom (a massless graviton should have spin +2 and spin -2 - two degrees-of-freedom). Thus, I propose that a Quaternionic SO(4) of tensors mixes quantum numbers with an Octonionic SO(5) of tensors to form an SO(6)~SU(4) of massive "WIMP-Gravitons" and a U(1) massless graviton (similar to a larger version of Electroweak where a mixing of quantum numbers between the B and W^0 yields a massless photon and a massive Z).

    Of course, Lubos has been trash-talking Baez's work on Octonions, so he would most likely dismiss the above ideas as pure speculation. In the last few days, Lubos has implied that I'm either "crazzy" or "on crack". If there is an error in your logic, Lubos will find it. The greatest error in my logic is that most of these ideas either can't be verified experimentally or the experiment hasn't yet been designed.

    Gravity could involve a holographic transform that converts gravitational "charge" in the Multiverse into spacetime "curvature" at our scale. Such a holographic boundary might help explain the non-observation of the graviton and WIMP-gravitons, but realize that these couplings are also extremly weak (too weak for the LHC to observe) and these WIMP-Gravitons may be extremely massive (Kaluza-Klein-like particles of order the Planck scale).

    Regarding scale thresholds, I basically think that these are related to the speed-of-light (on the "high" end of the scale) and Planck's constant (on the "low" end of the scale). Different people seem to define these scales differently. I prefer using Dirac's Large Number ~10^41 (and geometrical powers thereof, such as the Cosmological Constant of 10^(-123)~(10^41)^(-3)) as our "high" scale limit, but Robert L. Oldershaw uses ~1.7x10^58 and Edwin Eugene Klingman uses ~10^61 (both are roughly the inverse square-root of the Cosmological Constant).

    Translation - Our top scale number is a large physical number that is NOT infinity (13.7 Billion light years is NOT infinite).

    The quantization process occurs at the smallest scales. Color, Electric, Weak Hypercharge and Isospin "Charges" all seem to be quantized (as I pointed out in this FQXi essay). *IF* *EITHER* position or momentum is quantized at any scale, *THEN* my analysis of Direct and Reciprocal lattices (see Figure 1 in my FQXi essay) is appropriate. Which came first - the chicken or the egg? quantized spacetime or quantized energy-momentum?

    I compare my lattices to standard Solid State structures such as face-centered-cubic-close-packing and the Carbon-60 Buckyball lattices. I'm not saying that spacetime is made up of "Carbon" specifically, but rather, that the "Dirac Sea" (or "vacuum" or "aether") behaves like discrete structures at small enough scales (perhaps distances of order ~10^-31 cm). Self-similarity implies that a similar discrete structure should exist between our scale of existence vs. the Multiverse scale, and this discrete structure may be the tool that transfers holographic gravity from the Multiverse into Spacetime curvature (similar to Subir Sachdev's ideas).

    The lattice with the most-likely symmetries and strength to prevent the full collapse of the Black Hole "singularity" is the Buckyball. Thanks to the Hairy Ball theorem, even these structures are not completely stable. But two nested C-60 buckyballs could morph into their homotopic cousin, a lattice-like torus. In this collapse, it seems that 4 hexagons (8 lattice points) separate out of the torus. These 8 independent vertices look suspiciously like either a global SU(3) or a sterile 8-plet.

    If you have more questions, please join me at

    http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/816

    Have Fun!

    Dr. Cosmic Ray

      • [deleted]

      Dear Rafael,

      On your essay's blog thread, you said:

      BEGINNING OF QUOTE

      Ray, I am interested in your lattices because I realized that the various points of a lattice may be indicative of the kinds of particles stabilized (quantized) in various regions of the "outer layer or secondary kinematic field" generated around a "black hole singularity".

      In the above, the "outer layer or secondary kinematic field" is quite similar to what EE Klingman refers to as the "secondary C-field". I use "black hole singularity" to refer to the super-massive toroidal kinematic core-configuration that is analogous to a quantum particle but in the very large (super-massive, super-dense) scale.

      Also, the points in your lattices may be indicative of the prevalence-distribution of the various elements in galaxies - if applied to the structure of the galaxies.

      But these are rather of a long-shot idea...

      -

      Ray, regarding the scales threshold - I agree, the scales threshold is related to the speed of light (I have also mentioned this elsewhere and in my other postings above).

      The luminal velocity is a property of the seed-mass or rest-mass in the relativistic mass-energy genesis formula. The seed-mass in the genesis formula is expressed in terms of c2/c2, which to me means that the luminal motion is rotated and folded in the form of the seed-mass.

      The seed-mass or rest-mass of the quantum particle indicates the particle's stabilized mass unit and the mass-coefficient for c2/c2 and for the v2/c2 in the relativistic mass-energy genesis formula.

      The applied 3D acceleration (the v2/c2) is the increase over the threshold. I've used the gravitational g for the 3D acceleration - the G(mo/r2).

      The seed-mass is the catalyst for the mass creation.

      The seed-mass absorbs the kinetic (motion) increase supplied by the 3D acceleration and, as I envision it, the kinetic increase is wrapped into the toroidal configuration of the seed-mass. This is of course beyond the consideration for merely the increase in linear momentum.

      The absorbed kinetic energy is then emitted partly as radiant energy and partly as a particle or particles, with the seed-mass re-established to its original kinematic configuration.

      If the seed-mass is not re-established to its original kinematic configuration, the seed-mass with its kinetic increase may get broken up into new particles with some excess energy emitted.

      (The way I understand it, this is pretty much the generalized picture of the particle production in particle physics and of the quantum energy radiation in quantum theory. In the particle accelerators the particles are accelerated and collided to their 'targets' whereupon the particles with the increased energies get broken up into resultant particles with accompanying energy radiations.)

      It appears that the natural gauging process for the particle production and quantum energy emission is an oscillating process that stabilizes the quantum particles - although of course the natural gauging process may also produce unstable particles. In comparison, the artificial gauging process in particle accelerators generally produce unstable particles. Apparently, the gauge theories may be applicable in both.

      The gravitational acceleration appears to be the firm candidate as the prime factor in the natural gauging process because the gravitational tensor's component vectors are of the "low-high" velocities of the elliptical orbits of the revolutions of the cosmic gravitational masses, and the low-high velocities indicate oscillation in the infinite hierarchical cosmos.

      In my idea of the origin of gravity, I have proponed that the relative vectors of the revolutions of the gravitational masses in the hierarchical cosmos provide (are) the vector components for both the large-scale (analog) and the quantum-scale (discrete) gravitational fields. This of course suggests a TOE. I've explained these in my website and a bit in my other postings above.

      -

      My 'origin of gravity' idea is different from E Verlinde's proponed origin of gravity in that I do not consider gravity and space as emergent according to the thermodynamics law and also in that I do not find any necessity for the hyped holographic principle.

      In E Verlinde's work, the holographic principle poses the idea that the tensors-characterized cosmic process is a 3D hologram projection of the information from the 2D flat-projection (the linearized formulations) of the actually tensors-characterized cosmic process.

      The holographic principle is obviously only a round-about way of expression and is quite wrong because we already know that we have the 3D cosmic process. We've simply expressed the 3D cosmic process in linearized formulations for ease. So, the holographic principle is only a complexified repeat of the "flat-landers story" - the same animal...

      Apparently, E Verlinde's entropic origin of gravity is only another form of the big bang idea. It is quite like what can be considered via EE Klingman's idea of the C-field that radially expands from a big-bang 'centered-everywhere' scenario in which the G-field may be viewed as an 'emergent' background of the expansion.

      Obviously, both E Verlinde's idea and EE Klingman's idea allow the idea of an inflationary and attenuating entropic cosmos. But the idea of an inflationary and attenuating entropic cosmos does not sit well with the idea that gravity is a condensive and a quantum-stabilizing cosmic process.

      One cannot therefore find a convincing idea regarding the origin or source of the infinite number of vector components for the gravitational tensor in both the works of E Verlinde and EE Klingman.

      In my idea of the origin of gravity I propone that the revolutions of the gravitational masses in the hierarchical cosmos provide (are) the vector components for both the large-scale (analog) and the quantum-scale (discrete) gravitational fields. This, however, requires that an infinitely hierarchical cosmos always existed...

      END OF QUOTE

      My answer is:

      To touch on a few points:

      My concept of gravity and mass is that these originate at other scales (gravity is super-cosmic and mass is sub-quantum) and are transferred to our scale via some process such as holography. In the process, masses that may be quantized in another scale are "scrambled" such that the masses of fundamental particles seem to be random. Similarly, gravitational "charges" in another scale are better-represented by spacetime "curvature" at our scale.

      Your "seed mass" idea may be an appropriate way to represent the mass of a proton because the the component up and down quarks are relatively light-weight and the component transient gluons are (assumed) massless, so the rest mass of the proton is primarily due to the sum of average potential and kinetic energies of these component quarks and gluons.

      But to represent an electron rest mass as a "seed mass" requires a preon-like model whereby the electron is composed of "smaller" fundamental particles. Perhaps this preon scale is the sub-quantum scale, and a complete TOE might need to address *ALL* scales. At this stage in the game, I would prefer not to make the model this "complicated".

      IMHO, the TOE (if it exists) is a set of symmetries, and these lattices are a legitimate way to represent some of the properties of these symmetries. One example is Garrett Lisi's "E8 triality" symmetry. As I understand Lisi's model, this "triality" is due to an underlying C_3 3-fold rotational symmetry in the 8-D Gossett lattice that Lisi uses to try to explain the origin of three generations of matter. Certainly a 3-fold rotational symmetry *DOES* exist within the Gosset lattice, but other symmetries exist as well. What if the Tevatron and/or LHC discovers a fourth generation of matter? Then we might ascribe the C_3 3-fold Gosset lattice symmetry to color, and we would have to look for another symmetry to explain the number of generations...

      Regarding Erik Verlinde's ideas, holography would allow "charges" in 5 AdS spacetime dimensions to reduce down to "curvature" in 4 CFT spacetime dimensions. This is the AdS/CFT correspondence. The idea of gravity being generated in an unseen fifth dimension goes back to Theodor Kaluza ninety years ago, and holography is a known experimental method to reduce 3 dimensional visual information down to a two dimensional piece of film.

      I don't think that gravity is "random" ("scrambled" some maybe, but not random), and I therefore dislike the comparison of gravity with entropy and thermodynamics. There is stuff that we don't fully understand at the level of time, space, entropy and mass. Should we scramble everything together into one nice big omelet, or do we need to need to understand the individual components?

      Regarding Edwin Klingman's ideas, a "rotational" or "magnetic" component of gravity is another one of those ideas that has been around for a while, and makes sense when we compare a Poisson-like Gravitational field equation with Gauss' law for Electric fields. Although these initial steps of his ideas are correct, Edwin's claims sound exagerated when he starts talking about new ways of representing the Strong force, "trialities" of generations, the cosmological constant and "consciousness". As a Particle Physicist myself, I really don't see how you can build everything out of 4 fundamental types of particles (or even symmetries!). I'm not an opponent, but I am still skeptical...

      You worry about the idea of an ever-expanding Universe, but if the Cosmological Constant is "leakage" from another scale, then this result should be expected.

      Regarding a Cosmic scale, I haven't done much work on that scale of thinking, but Len Malinowski has at www.scalativity.com.

      Towards the end, you said "In my idea of the origin of gravity I propone that the revolutions of the gravitational masses in the hierarchical cosmos provide (are) the vector components for both the large-scale (analog) and the quantum-scale (discrete) gravitational fields. This, however, requires that an infinitely hierarchical cosmos always existed..."

      There is a thread at:

      http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/962

      that Xiang He started at:

      Apr. 8, 2011 @ 05:50 GMT

      where Xiang, others, and I discuss the observational consequences of a rotating Universe.

      An infinite Big Bang created an infinite Multiverse an infinite period of time ago, and our Observable Universe is a self-similar finite fractal fragment of the Multiverse with a finite age.

      Have Fun!

      Dr. Cosmic Ray

      • [deleted]

      Dear Rafael,

      On your essay's blog thread (#835),

      YOU SAID:

      Ray, you missed a lot of points again.

      You should reconsider the fundamentals of kinematics (have a pythagorean dream and go vectorial) and then read my explanations regarding the origin of gravity at this link - http://www.kinematicrelativity.com/article_033.php.

      I don't worry about the idea of an expanding universe. I love the idea especially in the proper perspective where continuous creation occurs that allows me the view that the concertedly increasing momenta of the cosmic masses is the cause of the spiral expansion generally along their orbits.

      An expanding, inflationary and attenuating universe going towards ultimate entropy is a decrepit perspective especially considering that gravity occurs.

      END OF QUOTE

      MY ANSWER:

      Your Figure 4 is basically a tokamak geometry - similar to some of the stuff that Peter Jackson and I discussed a couple of months ago, and it would also agree with Edwin Klingman's ideas. My lattice-like torus model at the Black Hole "singularity" (and Alan Lowey's proton model) might be self-similar to your cosmic model.

      Relativity prevents us from being able to directly detect the "center" of the Universe or any overall rotation about said "center". Xiang He and I recently discussed Ernest Sternglass' ideas on a rotating Universe in the "Clothes for the Standard Model" blog thread. My thoughts are that we need a "true inertial frame" with which to compare our Universe. The only "true inertial frame" that I could imagine that is greater than our Universe would be the Multiverse. If our Universe is rotating, then we might observe Coriolis effects. Sternglass and Xiang propose that a Universal rotation would cause a repulsive effect such as the cosmological constant, and may explain the reason why so many Galaxies are rotating spirals.

      I used a "Hurricane" model (or would you prefer Typhoon?) whereby convective air currents and the Coriolis effect combined can explain the rotation and drift of Hurricanes. Similarly, IF frame-dragging and the Coriolis effect work together to produce rotating galaxies and an ever-expanding Universe, then we should be able to model that in such a manner as to predict the relative amounts of rotation and frame-dragging for various galaxies.

      I am doubtful about "continuous creation". If the Big Bang is an ongoing process, then we should be able to detect some clear signals - such as electron-positron annihilation - that are not observed.

      Regarding Occam's Razor, I have always considered it to be a balance between Simplicity and Necessity, but many people overemphasize the "simplicity" side of the balancing scales IMHO.

      Have Fun!

      Dr. Cosmic Ray

      • [deleted]

      Dear Rafael,

      On your blog thread,

      YOU SAID:

      The Big Bang idea has been dead a long time ago. Perhaps, even dead before its inception.

      The Continuous Creation idea is ascendant and has always been superior to the Big Bang idea for the thousands of years that man has been on the planet.

      But asking me for text references on that will mean I go scriptural.

      The oldest secular text I could give you is the Hymnn of Creation from the Rig-Veda, and that is considered the oldest text in the secular world (and actually not even secular at that).

      END OF QUOTE

      MY RESPONSE:

      I think that many of us have core belief systems that somewhat bias our philosophy and expectations. Personally, I am a Christian (Southern Baptist). And although many Southern Baptists follow a literal interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, I usually interpret parts of the Book of Genesis metaphorically, rather than literally - it is how I deal with certain perceived conflicts.

      Regarding "continuous creation", you should go back and review the "Steady State" Universe, and the works of Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, and Sir Hermann Bondi. Big Bang seems to fit the experimental observations better than Steady State.

      My problem with the Big Bang is that General Relativity implies that the Big Bang was a "singularity". I argue that infinity cannot exist within a finite Universe (13.7 billion light-years is huge but finite). Therefore, I conclude that the Big Bang (and the immediately following phase transition, Inflation) created an infinite Multiverse.

      Another reasonable conclusion is that any sort of discrete behavior of spacetime limited the observable effects of the Big Bang such that we cannot witness the true "singularity" within our Observable Universe. This discreteness would occur at a very small scale such as ~10^(-33) m, and thus classically-scaled objects (humans of height ~2 m) would contain such a large number of "discrete" states that they would appear to be "continuous".

      My comparisons with Solid State physics implies that if spacetime is discrete, then its reciprocal lattice, energy-momentum must also be discrete. Or vice versa, if energy-momentum is discrete, then its reciprocal lattice, spacetime must also be discrete. Within the mathematics of Solid State Physics and Fourier lattice transforms, it really doesn't matter which lattice you name "direct", and which lattice you name "reciprocal", they are equally fundamental - this is the answer to my chicken-egg question from earlier.

      Phase transitions (such as Inflation) are often the origin of self-similar structures (such as the Mandelbrot set or the Cantor set). I therefore conclude that our Observable Universe is but a finite fractal fragment of the infinite Cantor set that is the Multiverse.

      Have Fun!

      Dr. Cosmic Ray

      Ray,

      Just a thought about singularities and metaphysics. If a theory, such as QED posits a singularity at every electron, then clearly something is wrong with the theory. But if modern physics posits ONE singularity at the point of Creation of the Universe, then a Christian might feel that this is as close a mathematical representation as one can get to the Creator.

      I don't mean this to be taken too seriously, but neither do I dismiss the idea entirely.

      Your friend,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman