Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
20 May 2010, 12:40 pm
20 May 2010, 4:58 pm
13 Jun 2010, 2:07 pm
justMax wrote:
So yeah.
Remember that comment about interacting with distances and my strange mention of mass?
Well, I was talking with someone about black holes as I randomly do, and I was trying to describe to him with metaphor.
Told him to picture a sheet, like the one on his bed, now twist a bit of it up, notice how it stretches the rest of the sheet?
An object embedded in the sheet traveling around it would notice that their paths were curved through that region, just like a gravity well.
I told him to picture twisting it up more and more, warping the sheet deeper, til it rips.
Now the edges of the torn section retreat somewhat, it is still stretched, and there is still a distortion, but the section you twisted up is ripped free, and trapped inside the hole.
That got me thinking, what if I could describe matter as folded distance?
Could there be a way to determine how much spacetime folded into a knotlike shape would represent matter?
While I was checking around with the math aspect, I started to doodle ideas, trying to figure out how you would fold it.
I considered a manner where the order and orientation of the knot folds was consistent, certain loops have to follow certain loops, loops in one direction are related to each other and the other directions in a certain way, so forth.
Then this happened:
I immediately noticed that with a certain distinction that loops going into the past and back towards the present would be future facing, and loops into the future and towards the present again would be past facing.
Now I have a way to orient them regardless of their rotation in spacetime, and an interesting thing happens, future facing loops would be positively charged due to how they are twisted, and those twists would determine the loops that could be connected to them.
You wind up with a stable structure of two past loops + one future loop, two up quarks + one down quark, an unstable structure of one past loop + two future loops which would unravel itself if not supported, smaller single future loops with a broader spread through time, and a baffling structure of four loops which should be stable.
There are a couple of ways to connect a four loop structure, but there is only one which won't unravel itself.
An up loop, a down loop, and the reverse twists of those connected across from them by their pairs, an anti-down loop, and an anti-up loop.
This particle would be about as heavy as a hydrogen atom, I'm figuring in the range of 1.25 GeV, but it wouldn't interact electromagnetically due to it's twists canceling out. It wouldn't tangle through the strong interactions due to being balanced internally, but it would interact through gravity, and weak interactions.
Dark Matter.
Hmmm, so I made a prediction last Sept regarding this, I said the LHC would not find the Higgs, but it would show mass shadows which decay into mesonic type structures, they would have non-interactive paths of travel, and roughly 1.25 GeV.
Apparently the Tevatron reported something fitting roughly that description (a 2 picosecond flight length gap with a GeV worth of meson decay products on the other side) last October.
It would be bosonic, Spin 0, up, down, anti-up, anti-down quarks, which adds up to 0 charge.
It could also explain why matter and anti-matter didn't annihilate, if much of it was locked up into a stable form such as this.
Excitedly I set to work on a mathematical version of a spacetime model built out of 1-D threads to tie knots out of, I have a rough draft of the basics.
Remember that comment about interacting with distances and my strange mention of mass?
Well, I was talking with someone about black holes as I randomly do, and I was trying to describe to him with metaphor.
Told him to picture a sheet, like the one on his bed, now twist a bit of it up, notice how it stretches the rest of the sheet?
An object embedded in the sheet traveling around it would notice that their paths were curved through that region, just like a gravity well.
I told him to picture twisting it up more and more, warping the sheet deeper, til it rips.
Now the edges of the torn section retreat somewhat, it is still stretched, and there is still a distortion, but the section you twisted up is ripped free, and trapped inside the hole.
That got me thinking, what if I could describe matter as folded distance?
Could there be a way to determine how much spacetime folded into a knotlike shape would represent matter?
While I was checking around with the math aspect, I started to doodle ideas, trying to figure out how you would fold it.
I considered a manner where the order and orientation of the knot folds was consistent, certain loops have to follow certain loops, loops in one direction are related to each other and the other directions in a certain way, so forth.
Then this happened:
I immediately noticed that with a certain distinction that loops going into the past and back towards the present would be future facing, and loops into the future and towards the present again would be past facing.
Now I have a way to orient them regardless of their rotation in spacetime, and an interesting thing happens, future facing loops would be positively charged due to how they are twisted, and those twists would determine the loops that could be connected to them.
You wind up with a stable structure of two past loops + one future loop, two up quarks + one down quark, an unstable structure of one past loop + two future loops which would unravel itself if not supported, smaller single future loops with a broader spread through time, and a baffling structure of four loops which should be stable.
There are a couple of ways to connect a four loop structure, but there is only one which won't unravel itself.
An up loop, a down loop, and the reverse twists of those connected across from them by their pairs, an anti-down loop, and an anti-up loop.
This particle would be about as heavy as a hydrogen atom, I'm figuring in the range of 1.25 GeV, but it wouldn't interact electromagnetically due to it's twists canceling out. It wouldn't tangle through the strong interactions due to being balanced internally, but it would interact through gravity, and weak interactions.
Dark Matter.
Hmmm, so I made a prediction last Sept regarding this, I said the LHC would not find the Higgs, but it would show mass shadows which decay into mesonic type structures, they would have non-interactive paths of travel, and roughly 1.25 GeV.
Apparently the Tevatron reported something fitting roughly that description (a 2 picosecond flight length gap with a GeV worth of meson decay products on the other side) last October.
It would be bosonic, Spin 0, up, down, anti-up, anti-down quarks, which adds up to 0 charge.
It could also explain why matter and anti-matter didn't annihilate, if much of it was locked up into a stable form such as this.
Excitedly I set to work on a mathematical version of a spacetime model built out of 1-D threads to tie knots out of, I have a rough draft of the basics.
I assume you know this bears at least a superficial resemblance to the popularizations of string theory? Maybe not since I cannot find it mentioned elsewhere in this post. It proposes to do similar things to your statements. It has the annoying requirement that in the simplest complete mathematical form the universe is 10+1 dimensional. (Stating the dimensionality that way will make more sense if you look into the history and math of the topic.) It has been revived a few times and has only a small serious following, almost completely mathematician/theorist.
I do not have sufficient experience in GR to make much of a comment on your claims, but I will say your presentation here is very hand-waving and does not have obvious rigor. It is very easy for the mainstream to be dismissive of it. Even as a non-GR specialists, your proposal seems a little too neat and easy. I mean this in a constructive, advisive manner; your stuff here is indistiquishable from the quacks I see on PhysOrg who complain that no one listens to their great idea, after they accuse the mainstream of science of being idiots. If you want to be taken seriously by physics theorists, you will need to be more coherent. You will also need to link as much as possible to the mainstream paradigms (which means studying the literature extensively). Even if you are showing that the mainstream paridigms are wrong, you need to show how your solution reproduces the current established ideas in some limit. Just as we know Newtonian gravity is incorrect, it was still necessary to show that GR reduces to it in certain limits. They are people and do not like to have some upstart with or without credentials jump up and claim the work they have devoted their life to was obviously wrong. They have a lot invested in it. (I hated this book, but it seems appropriate. Thomas Kuhn's On the structure of scientific revolutions) Even if your claims are correct, it will take you a lifetime to get any recognition for it.
I am afraid this is how peer review works. It is slow to change and repressive of new ideas. It has strength in that if keeps us from going off on wild not well thought out tangents. Sending your idea wide and far to non-specialists in GR makes you look like a crack-pot. I frequently get un-solicited emails on similar (but better worded) subjects from the santilli foundation and ignore them. Why? They are doing the scientific equivalent of the Nigerian prince money exchange email scam.
Even with many respectable purveyors, string theory itself is still somewhat fringe. (Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics which I have been meaning to read) While it is mathematecally elegant, it puts in not obviously justified complications in the theory. And even then, it has essentially no predictions that are experimentally distiquishable from the Standard Model (which we know is incomplete, but it is the best experimentally verifiable theory we have) or GR.
Sorry if I am being too much a downer. It is just so difficult to separate the crack-pot ideas from the good ones. And if yours is a good one, then it would be good if you do not turn yourself into a pariah before it has a chance. Take a look at the guys railing against the scientific establishment on PhysOrg to know how NOT to present your ideas.
26 Feb 2016, 7:57 am
