• [deleted]

  • Post #70

Dear Alan,

sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

I think that simulation modeling is an interesting approach to problems but correspondence of appearance of the model(output) is not -necessarily- the same as similarity of cause (of that similar appearance) or similarity to the function in the "real" world. Put the Alan Lowey eel-spearing, flying penguin into a computer simulation world and it might survive very well. Put some genetically engineered living specimen into the real world and they might very well die or wreak havoc because they are not a compatible part of the existing far more complex ecosphere. Likewise a modeled graviton might work perfectly well in the model world but not in the externally existing "real world".

Several problems arise from my own incompatible thinking about the universe. I do not think it ever was a singularity or an empty void from which everything condensed or coalesced. I think it must be eternal, that is without a beginning or end - as it is a continuous process -not- an individual thing. A bit like how a family tree continues as family members die and new ones are born. I also do not think gravity is really made of particles but is a perturbation of an unseen medium by the universal trajectory of matter passing through it. Being similar to the other forces which are also perturbations of the medium, due to movements of particles. Having said that I have thought a bit about spirals and how the apparent trajectory of an object changes at different scales of observation. So there is a very tenuous connection.

I really don't know what else to say.I can see that you are very enthusiastic about the Archimedes screw graviton idea but as you can see we are looking at things very differently. I also do not want to express an opinion on everything, especially when it falls outside of what I consider my area of expertise and I know no more about it that the next man. Part of the appeal of this competition has been the opportunity to have our various ideas seen and read. You have achieved that goal. Despite the best intentions I am able to be more constructive, positive and helpful. Perhaps it is a missed ball for me. It is interesting to see what you are doing,

I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors. Georgina.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #71

    That should say "I am unable to be more constructive..."

    Sorry

    Dear Georgina,

    lol with the flying penguin analogy, very funny. I also think that the larger universe is eternal, it's just that our part of that eternity is a bubble of nothingness which spontaneously appeared within this continous process and then gained energy and form from the outside. The void grew in size causing a penetration of energy from the outside of this bubble creating our existence. This model of reality at the biggest scale allows the solving of the 'infinity paradox' via a wraparound universe

    You say "I also do not think gravity is really made of particles but is a perturbation of an unseen medium by the universal trajectory of matter passing through it" which is clearly stated which I much appreciate. I used to think this way but have since changed my opinion to particles in empty space. It's less aesthetically pleasing at first but you get used to it!

    Nice to have 'met you' Georgina,

    Best wishes,

    Alan

    Dear Sreenath and Cosmic,

    I'm not so concerned about the exact nature of the spiral structures at this point of our discussion. Georgina expresses her worldview very well and she says exactly what I want to hear, despite myself having an alternative viewpoint. It's the plain speaking which is lacking somewhat from others imo. For example Sreenath, do you have the same picture of reality as Georgina, and if not, what is the difference? I presume you also imagine a 'medium' of some sort which particles travel through??

    Best wishes to you both and here's to a t.o.e by the end of the year,

    Alan

    A colleague from an online forum has kindly looked into the new galaxy rotation hypothesis and posted the following. Unfortunately I haven't had time to go through it in detail, but it looks like a reaonable first attempt imo:

    Based on the following assumptions:

    Galaxies exist for billions of years, so the stars in the outer halo must be in relatively stable orbits,

    Almost all of the visible mass in the galaxy is at the galactic core,

    There is no ``hidden mass'' (i.e. dark matter), and

    Newtonian mechanics (F = ma) are valid for analyzing halo star trajectories,

    We have the following assertions:

    The motion of the halo stars must be centripetal, and

    Any gravitational field exerted by the galaxy must be almost completely divergenceless in the halo.

    The first assertion implies that there is a center-pulling force (F) on the halo stars (of mass m) creating a velocity (v) of:

    F = mv2 / r

    Where r is the distance the halo star is from the galactic core. For standard Newtonian gravity the force is:

    F = GMm / r2

    Where G is the Gravitational constant, and M is the mass of the galactic core. The velocity of a halo star is then:

    v = (GM / r)0.5

    To match to experimental data, we want the velocity of the halo start to be a constant - i.e. not depend on r. The easiest way of achieving this is to set the gravity to:

    F = GMm / r

    And then we have:

    v = (GM)0.5

    This theory has two major problems with it:

    This force would ``break'' all existing planetary orbits, and

    This force has a non-zero divergence.

    The second easiest approach is to add a term to Newtonian gravity. There is no ``spiral force'' that will work, such a force would constantly speed up the rotation of halo stars (or constantly slow down, depending on the direction), and the halo would either be flung off into space or collapse into the core. Since we do not observe this happening, we can rule it out.

    We can't simply add rn terms to Newtonian gravity either, because they are not divergenceless, and would never cancel out the 1/r2 from Newtonian gravity unless they canceled out the force entirely (i.e. no centripetal motion).

    The simplest solution that I can think of is to add some sort of gravitational equivalent to the Lorentz force as follows:

    F = m (GM / r2 + bvrn)

    Where b and n are to be determined.

    This gives us a velocity of:

    v = b / 2 rn+1 + r / 2 ( b2r2n - 4 GM / r2)0.5

    If we set n = -1, we then have a velocity of:

    v = b / 2 + ( b2 - 4 GM )0.5

    Which is independent of r, as desired.

    Unfortunately... the only Lorentz-type field that is divergence-free has 1/r3 dependence, no 1/r.

    If we don't use divergenceless fields, then we are basically postulating dark matter all over again.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #75

    I think I've got it now. The problem with the current calculation of 1,800 years can be seen in this paper Possible forcing of global temperature by the oceanic tides as well. In the The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change it states on page 3 that:

    "The greatest possible astronomical tide raising forces would occur if the moon and the sun were to come into exact mutual alignment with the earth at their closest respective distances (7). If we only consider motions as they exist today (the present epoch) we can determine departures from this reference event as simple functions of the separation-intervals between four orbital conditions that determine these alignments and distances. The most critical condition is closeness in time to syzygy, a term that refers to either new moon or full moon. The return period of either lunar phase defines the 29.5-day synodic month. Maxima in tidal strength occur at both new and full moon: i.e., "fortnightly.""

    The first line is now incorrect w.r.t the new model. It's now possible that the maximum tide raising forces can occur if the sun and moon are in alignment but NOT at their closest, but a combination of closeness and more importantly their 'elevation' or inclination angle.

    I'm sure this new calculation is possible and will begin a wave of discovery and ultimately lead to a proof of the solarlunar 1,470 year tidal cycle which will be shown to influence our climate to a very significant degree.

    There's a new area of research here also [link:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121163915.htm]First Study to Show That Seismic Imaging Detects Ocean's Internal Tides]

    I've had an interesting discussion with Ian Durham which I'd like to re-iterate here:

    [Myself]

    Hi Ian, you sound like an intelligent guy who's mathematically minded so I want to put to you this quandry regarding another ancient Greek:

    Newton's inability to consider a particle model for the force of gravity has left a legacy where the ideology of a spacetime continuum has been set in stone. His equation negates the possiblity of a particle for the force of gravity. If he had considered the Archimedes screw as a GRAVITON he would have included an element of ORIENTATION in his simplistic equation, wouldn't he?

    [Ian Durham]

    Hmmm. Why does his equation negate a particle model for gravity? Coulomb's law is similar and yet we have a very successful particle model for electrostatics.

    [Myself]

    His declaration of universality or put simply "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions" is a BIG assumption which is then set in stone within his gravity equation. No wonder it can't be reconciled with particle based QM! Why did no-one at the time of Newton consider the Archimedes screw as a mechanical method for explaining the force of gravity, his spooky action at a distance?? The history of science would have been very different if someone had imo!

    I'd just like to re-iterate my point about a spinning helix which travels around a hypersphere being analogous to an electric circuit. Imagine you are on the inside of a battery which is connected to a simple loop of wire which makes an electric circuit. Imagine a handle rotates clockwise from the positive terminal as seen from your internal perspective. Now trace this turning handle as it travels along the wire and arrives at the negative terminal of the battery. Which way is the handle now turning from the viewpoint of the battery's interior? Is it clockwise or is it anti-clockwise?

    The thought experiment illustrates the important relationship between chirality, loops and mirror images. Incidentally, I learnt from a repeat of QI on TV last night about oranges and lemons. The aroma of a lemon is the exact mirror image of an orange and vice versa. Our olfactory sense, the first one to develop via evolution I believe, is ultra sensitive to right and left handedness of airborne molecules, which I find quite interesting.

    [Ian Durham]

    Very interesting concept, but I still don't see why his theory of gravity is any different in that sense from electrostatics. In other words, just because he worded it in a certain way doesn't automatically make it incompatible with a particle model. It certainly could have affected the interpretation historically, but it doesn't a priori rule out a particle interpretation.

    [Myself]

    Okay, that's a good point about the similarity with electrostatics, which I've just thought about a bit more. The difference is that Coulombs law assumes "charged" particles, so that they come in two opposite types. Electric charge is a physical property of matter which causes it to experience a force when near other electrically charged matter. The way these two types interact hasn't been modelled by mechnical means, just like gravity itself. Why do like charges attract and opposites repell? The mechanism is an enigma.

    If a 'fabric' of spacetime is visualised as the 'mechanism' of gravity, then this fabric is uniform and symmetrical. It therefore can't be the cause of the elctrostatic forces. His equation therefore negates gravity as being behind the eletrostatic force. It therefore renders the unification of all the forces an impossiblity. Therefore his equation must be wrong imo.

      lol, edit: I should have said opposites attract and like charges repell. (school was a long time ago)

      • [deleted]

      • Post #81

      Dear Alan,

      As promised I have read your paper. The idea of a 'mirror universe' is implied by 'the Light' in my paper. I prefer not to speculate regarding what can be derived, and so you may well be correct regarding energy-momentum conservation. Your archimedian screw analogy has served you admirably!

      All the best,

      Robert

        • [deleted]

        • Post #82

        Hi Alan,

        I finally figured out the Moebius strip combined with the toroidal lattice based on Buckyball symmetries. I made a paper model. The next step is to cut up two Soccer balls, and put them back together as a torus.

        Have Fun!

        Dr. Cosmic Ray

        Dear Alan, I like the fact that in the several analogies to mechanical models that you have presented , you have stressed the importance of chirality - handedness - any model that aspires to show how the universe works has to explain that. You will have to do more to demonstrate how this one attribute translates into the very complex phenomena of physics ranging from electromagnetism to gravity. You should use your simulation skills to more fully present graphically the ideas you only touched upon in a handful of sweeping verbal statements. Good luck, and as 'Cosmic Ray' says have fun!

        Best wishes from Vladimir.

          Thank you Vladimir,

          your words are given with a common insight. I take heed and will endeavour to produce something more computerised than just wordy speculations. I was hoping for a kindred spirit and I think there's two potential essay authors into the next round who will be interested in my working models. Thanks for the advice Vladimir,

          Best wishes,

          Alan

          • [deleted]

          • Post #86

          Hi Alan,

          You left questions on several forums. I left answers on my blog site, but had not heard any responses from you, so I thought I should repost those responses here.

          Thanks for the Congratulations.

          I think this question ultimately reverts back to the question "Is Nature fundamentally Discrete or Continuous?"

          I said that Reality is an effectively an intertwined "twistor-like" hybrid of both. This permits wave-particle duality, and permits us to observe "continuous realities" such as fields that are modeled as if they are continuous "ad infinitum" (as Cristi Stoica claimed), as well as "discrete realities" such as electric charges that are modeled as if they are non-divisible quanta. I liked Cristi's presentation, but I asked him to define "continuous ad infinitum" if infinity cannot exist in a finite Observable Universe (13.7 billion light years is a very large size, but it isn't infinite). The reality is that these "continuous fields" probably break down somewhere around the 10^-31 cm scale, and this is where the spacetime lattice model is required for a proper understanding of the Black Hole "singularity" (it may also be related to the Dirac Sea and Constantin Leshan's Quantum Vacuum Hole).

          Ed and I traded books, and have been discussing each other's ideas since the last essay contest. I like his GEM-like ideas and agree that this could represent part of the continuous nature of reality. As a particle physicist myself, I think he is "off-base" with regard to his claim of 4 fundamental particles, but I'm also tired of arguing a point that I consider obvious. I think that Ed's model has a single triality, and therefore requires scales and S-duality to explain the two required trialities in his model: Color (he doesn't have a QCD field), and Generations (similar to Garrett Lisi's triality of generations).

          I like your helical screw idea. Perhaps there is a mixing of transverse and longitudinal waves (that implies an effective mass) that includes the properties of scales. Recall that electromagnetism is ~10^40 times stronger than gravity - and this requires a scale. Ed Klingman's 10^60 also requires a scale, and I think that he has improperly modeled 10^120~(10^60)^2 rather than 10^120~(10^40)^3. Effectively, this requires your screw threads to be logarithmic - finer threads for weaker forces such as gravity and courser threads for stronger forces such as electromagnetism. In this sense, the threads for gravity may be so fine (outside of a Black Hole) that they seem to be stripped out.

          I think that the unification of forces requires scales - which is why I dedicated this essay to scales and how they explain the continuous and discrete natures of relaity.

          I see that you left this message in several forums. My previous answer involved scales moreso than screws, but I thought that I should explore more details about your Archimedes screw.

          I think that there are details that have been largely overlooked here. First, there is the "pitch" of a screw thread. In the US, most of our screws are pitched such that we turn "right to tighten, or left to loosen", but screws with the opposite pitch can also be manufactured. About 20 years ago, many propane gas cylinder tanks had opposite threads - I guess that the assumption was that you would try to "turn left to loosen", but always tighten instead - until you read all of the safety directions and realized that you didn't know what you were doing. They have since changed propane gas cyclinder threads back to the standard pitch - I guess that you don't want people to accidently loosen a tank while they thought they were tightening it.

          Conclusion - By changing the pitch of an Archimedes' screw, you can make it attractive or repulsive.

          Another detail is the rotation of the screw. It should be obvious that if we change the rotation of a screw - say from Clockwise to Counter-clockwise, then the direction of the force induced by the Archimedes' screw changes.

          Conclusion - By changing the rotation of an Archimedes' screw, you can make it attractive or repulsive.

          I think that all of these ideas may tie into CPT symmetry. Perhaps handedness (parity) and antimatter (charge) (4 different permutations) are related to these concepts of pitch and rotation (also 4 different permutations).

          Personally, I have no problem modeling a Field line or a String with an Archimedes' screw (with variable thread spacing), but realize that the resultant force could be attractive or repulsive - as is electrostatics.

          Now we need to explain why gravity is strictly attractive. Is there more to gravity (say within a Black Hole or in a scale of greater complexergy) such as Quantum Gravity, Holographic Gravity, my WIMP-Gravity (see my book), or Edwin Klingman's GEM Gravity? And we only observe the attractive side? Or is this tied into CPT symmetry such that attractive gravity moves forward in time, and repulsive gravity moves backwards in time (which would look attractive and forward)? I don't know...

          I think there is enough that we truly don't understand about the origins of mass and gravity that we shouldn't get too overconfident in our models.

          One more thought that may be significant:

          Earlier, I mentioned that the Archimedes' screw needs an effective mass and longitudinal degrees-of-freedom similar to a Z boson in order to physically represent the concept of screw threads.

          Photons are expected to have zero rest mass so that they can have a pure inverse-distance-squared dependance - so where is the effective mass? This may require mass-energy correspondance such that photons have an effective mass given by E = mc^2 = hf.

          Have Fun!

          Dr. Cosmic Ray

            Hi Ray,

            Apologies for not responding sooner but I'm currently doing physical work from 9.30am to 4.30pm, which has been a bit of a shock to the system(!). Incidentally, I only have access to the internet from my local library, during the day, Tue to Sat morning. I'm cutting rhododendron trees back which carry the sudden oak death disease. It's a four week mandatory voluntary scheme which I'm currently enjoying.

            I read your post with increased enthusiasm. We are starting to get to a common ground on many issues. A couple of points that need mentioning is the flux density of gravitons which can be an alternative to your "thread pitch" visualisation. The number of gravitons which interact per time scale will also influence the overall gravity force in a field. It's wrong to think that gravity is a weak force and always attractive though imo. It's only the resultant field from protons and neutrons in matter configurations which have a weak field. The gravitons could be emitted in a combination of repulsive configuration and attraction configuration for example, it's just that more attractive gravitons are emitted overall into the surrounding field. This ties in with magnetism and the electric field which have forces of repulsion as well as attraction. Both can be modelled via gravitons imo.

            I hope this enough to be getting on with. Thanks for the correspondence.

            Best wishes,

            Alan

            5 days later

            Note to self:

            QED in Wikipedia states repeatedly that Feynman himself was unhappy with "dippy process" of renormalisation as a 'fudge factor'. New imagery is needed imo. Loops and fractal-like geometry is exactly what I've been drawing and talking about. There's no need for infinites or ad infinitums, reality tends to zero on a decreasing scale of size and amount. It's the simulation model that is needed to understand what's going in this kind of detail.

              A new picture of the matter loop: a toroid made of braids, 2 pairs of opposite helical radiating structures. Both attractive and repulsive Archimedes screw graviton configurations emitted. Twists give two plaiting techniques and geometry a different effect on the junction area.