Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die? by Alan Lowey

David Tong has kindly responded to an email enquiry I made earlier:

Hi again David,

You made some good points earlier which I failed to respond to, namely:

>> But let's suppose that there's some way to make this work. Then there's

>> the question of whether it really looks like dark energy: is it the right

>> size? How does the force change as the Universe expands. From your

>> description, my guess would be that the force gets weaker as the Universe

>> expands. But that's not right....it should stay the same. (Of course,

>> to really figure this out we would have to do the maths, but that brings

>> me back to the first point of trying to reconcile this with our current

>> theories).

The graviton model wouldn't require an expansion of space itself to act as the mechanism behind Hubble's redshift phenomenon. Interestingly, this model requires a stable bubble of fixed size with wraparound properties. The imagery of a photon in this new model is a structural configuration of both gravitons and anti-gravitons. The graviton model explanation for the redshift of distant light is not due to stretching, but due to the uniform natural decay of the graviton itself over time, giving a natural lengthening of the photon 'wave packet'.

Kind regards,

AlanAttachment #1: Hypersphere.jpg

Here's an important post I made in the Blog discussion section:

Ray and Frank,

Thanks for the clarifications, I made two mistakes in one it seems. I have Walt Disney to thank for the 'imagineering' word then, thanks Walt. I have a question for you both which refers to a section of David Tong's superb essay quoted below:

[quote]However, it is not always so easy to construct a lattice version of a quantum field theory. The trouble lies with fermions, objects which carry half-integer spin so you have to turn around twice before you get back to where you started. There is a long history of headaches associated with lattice fermions, many of them enshrined in the celebrated "no-go theorem" due to Nielsen and Ninomiya [9]. Important progress in the 1990s [10] showed how one can circumvent many, but not all, of these problems. The current state of the art is that there is just a single class of quantum field theories which physicists do not know how to simulate on a computer [11]. This is the class in which fermions that spin in an anti-clockwise direction experience different (non-Abelian) forces from those that spin in a clockwise direction. Such theories are referred to as chiral.

Chiral theories are interesting and delicate. Subtle effects known as anomalies are always lurking, threatening to render the theory mathematically inconsistent. For this reason chiral quantum field theories are rather special. But perhaps the most special among them is the Standard Model. This is a chiral theory because only fermions that spin anti-clockwise experience the Weak force. Chirality is one of the most striking and important features of the Standard Model. Yet, when it comes to constructing a lattice version of the theory, it has consequence: no one knows how to write down a discrete version of the Standard Model. Which means that no one knows how to write down a discrete version of the current laws of physics. [end quote]

In particular, it's this sentence which intrigued me: "The trouble lies with fermions, objects which carry half-integer spin so you have to turn around twice before you get back to where you started."

My imagineering skills kicked in within my subconscious and I've come to the conclusion that fermions must have two types of spin, with one twice the rate of the other. The pictures have yet to set within my mind, but I feel that the dynamics of this scenario describes exactly what David is saying. The physical simulation of the particle configurations will simplify everything so that a bright ten year old could understand it imo. Do you begin to see the imagery I'm getting at?

The mathematical 1/2 spin is therefore very misleading imo and is in reality something much more interesting, with 1:2 spin resonance.

Note to self:

Dark energy is now not needed for galactic redshift, but it would be a good candidate for a kind of early inflation perhaps?

I also had the idea last night about the possiblity of multiple big bangs within this new scenerio. Each of the individual galaxies could have been created from it's own creation of opposing structures before implosion perhaps, each occurring at slightly different times?

A physical model is desperately needed to distinguish between bosons and fermions imoAttachment #1: Bosonfermion_spin.jpg

(Ray)

The 'flip spin' of the quarks must be reduced to zero at the proposed transition to anisotropic graviton emission. Within the Earth, I guess that this is at the boundary of the 360 mile diameter innermost coreAttachment #1: 3_Quantum_Inclination_Hypothesis.jpg

Going back to the 360 mile diameter inner innermost core issue, I've thought of a neat solution. I think this is the boundary where the atom breaks down and it's neutron lattice shells which are closely packed, due to the high speed of spin and pressure on the rotational axis. If the quarks 'line-up', then this will leave holes, anlagous to the dark sunspot holes of the sun, which emit hotter solar radiation than the rest of the surface. I think that a similar process can work with graviton emission in the Earth's inner innermost core. It also gives clues to the nature of the up and down quarks w.r.t 'flip-spin'. I don't have my notes or a scanner at the moment, so I'll wait until I get back home and go to my local library before I explain the details and attach a sketch or two....

I've scanned a quick doodle I had showing the neutron lattice shell idea which would break down nearer the poles due to the lack of 'spin pressure'.

Using this hypothesis, one can therefore assume that it's the down-quarks which possess 'flip-spin' and the up-quarks which have none. This is due to the neutron being assumed to have no overall flip-spin, therefore able to form lattice shells, due to the two outer down-quarks cancelling each other out. The central up-quark doesn't produce a flip-spin torque effect. The proton on the other hand has two up-quarks on each side of a down-quark. The central down-quark therefore has the flip-spin, unhindered by the two outer up-quarks. It's a lot easier to understand than it sounds! See attached.

The difference in the two quarks is therefore due to their different helical weaves, which must be of at least three 'braids'. A symmetrical weave denotes the up-quark whilst an asymetrical weave denotes the down-quark. Perhaps a kermantle kind of rope technique is formed? I still need to iron out the details. Watch this space.

P.S I'm just about to look into the the omega-minus baryon to see how the three strange quarks fit with my new working model.Attachment #1: 1_Earths_Neutron_Core.jpgAttachment #2: 1_Quark_Dynamics.jpg

Here's a quote from an article about the strange inner innermost core:

[quote]The innermost core of the earth, which consists of highly compressed iron in a solid state, is known to have an extremely low degree of rigidity in regard to shear足-the impact of twisting or other forces. The iron at the center of the earth therefore behaves largely like a fluid, which lacks all resistance to shear, making it easy for shifts to take place in the matter in the earth's core. One consequence is that the seismic waves that move along the surface of the inner core move unexpectedly slowly.[end quote]

Here's a reply from the blog discussion from Peter Jackson:

Hi Alan

Aren't Eurekas lovely! May I just venture that as gravity relates to density sunspots, as cooler so more dense zones, will indeed exert more acceleration than the hotter more diffuse areas. I suspect this is consistent with your model. It may also be a contributor to the impossibility of tying down the gravitational constant with any accuracy - as it keeps changing! There's a good piece in this weeks NS, but I didn't see the moon mentioned as a possible cause of variation. The experimentalists may feel it has no effect but my money's on the empirical evidence from the oceans!

SPIN 1/2 One point that got chopped from my essay was that there is another very simple 'real' explanation for spin 1/2, though also 'phase' related. A toroid AGN, stellar mass bh, tokamak or indeed any torus, with magnetic field causing astrophysical jets, will spin on its primary axis while the field rotates around it's circular section (google 'Hoft Fibration' etc). Subject to the relationship of phase and rotation this may indeed spin twice before it's starting condition returns. From a rest frame this describes a multiple helix (I'm sure I've heard of these somewhere!) which are of course analageous to your spirals.

Indeed the process could actually explain any spin phase.

I've always been aware of the dangers of relating particle spin to actual rotation of a sphere, as it was never so or intended to be so, and 'spin' was a bad word to chose, but this does work on both levels. Perhaps I was missing it as the answer to something very close to your question and sketch on my string.

You may also notice that Hoft Fibration points us straight back to gauge theory and the DFM.

Peter

Hi Peter,

Yes, the Eureka moments have been coming one after another over the last few years or more. Maybe it's middle age or something, but the effect is rather subdued nowadays, I've gotten too used to it perhaps(!). I'm glad you're open to the sunspot/gravity connection and in agreement with the empirical evidence of ocean current mapping having the final say.

Thanks for the hopf fibration info, that was totally new to me. The graphics are inspiring. I also agree that there's a problem with the mainstream combination of mathematics and the imagery of a sphere. The whole caboodle needs redefining in a more precise fashion imo. The quark modelling of the proton and neutron in 3D solves the issue, it's just never been done before. I've made some progress in this direction which is why I've been shouting the Eureka word again.

Ray,

I just remebered that I already predicted the shape of the Earth's (and sun's) 'inner seed nugget' to be much denser than baryonic matter and shaped like a rugby ball balanced on it's end, as if ready to be kicked. This ties in a peach with Brouwer's theorem. The neutron shells would be twisted into a stiffer structure than the surrounding 'fluid' according to Brouwer's theorem. It would be thicker around the middle where the speed of rotation is fastest, reducing in width towards either pole. Isn't this exactly the shape as predicted by this theory? (P.S Wouldn't the twisted neutron shell 'seed nugget' produce the Earth's magnetic field? Wouldn't the remaining fluid flow around this seed nugget from one hemisphere to another producing the Earth's electric field?)

Not only does this model explain the unusual earthquake phenomena of the inner innermost core but it also can explain the mystery of dark matter. If you add up all the rugby ball shaped inner seed nuggets of the stars they would have a combined effect of one big galactic seed nugget. This is exactly what has been deduced from precise modelling of the path of a shredded dwarf galaxy called Sagittarius which fell into our galaxy more than 3 billion years ago. Milky Way Has "beach ball" Dark Matter Halo

[quote]The cloud of dark matter that is thought to surround the Milky Way may be shaped like a squashed beach ball. This halo of invisible matter also seems to sit at an unexpected angle - which could be a strike against a theory that challenges Einstein's account of gravity...

The debris stream suggests the dark matter distribution is very different to that of ordinary matter, says Law. Instead of mimicking the Milky Way's disc of stars, as simulations had suggested, the halo is roughly perpendicular to the disc and is roughly half as thick as it is wide.[end quote]

It's the rugby ball shape which is needed to tie in with the Tidal Inclination Hypothesis. As the Earth's orbit rises above or below the Sun's ecliptic plane in a 100,000 year cycle, the cross sectional surface area of this seed nugget becomes reduced. Therefore the gravitational gradient across the Earth is reduced, creating less tidal bulging, which in turn reduces the strength of the ocean tides and the transport of heat from the equator to the poles, which starts an ice age albedo feedback scenario. The evidence for my working model is now getting into the overwhelming stage..

Best wishes, Alan

Here's my latest conclusions, see attached diagrams of this and next post:

A schematic of three quarks is shown with two concentric torus helical structures, the central core being squeezed into position during the inital 'implosion of creation' phase. The dynamics gives the overall space occupying shape of a disk i.e. the spin is in one plane only.Attachment #1: Start_With_Three_Quarks.jpg

See that the dislocation of the central torus within a quark dramatically changes the dynamics into two types of spin, see that the protn configuration produces a spin in another plane, 90 degrees to the starting one. This gives the particle a spherical space occupying shape.

If the two outer quarks have this dislocation, then a configuration can occur where the two extra spin torques cancel one another out, i.e. as in a neutron.Attachment #1: ProtonSphereLike.jpgAttachment #2: NeutronDiskLike.jpg

Using this hypothesis, the spherical spin of a hydrogen nucleus, a single proton, should be half of that of a helium atom, having a proton plus a neutron as well as any other nucleus with an equal number of protons and neutrons. This gives an new insight into the importance of isotopes and deuterium in particular. Does deuterium also have half spherical spin compared to the much more abundant light hyrodgen?