Physicists, rejoice! I have arrived to geek with you!

Post Reply New Topic

Man, I must be a nightmare for NT folk.

They show the slightest hint of interest in physics... well... that's my button.

All of a sudden I'm describing the structure of a gravity well, and the way it relates to time, and how that relates to what we're experiencing, and how that explains why quantum mechanics is so fraught with misunderstanding!

Then I notice they're bleeding out of their ears...


My girlfriend indulges me in doses, she tells me when she is getting overloaded, and needs to ponder.

It's helped having the honesty, but man, don't it feel good to just totally geek out and rant about physics?

Feel free to geek at me, I'll do the same.

Btw, I think I found a way to tweak General Relativity by adjusting a single value, and in doing so it makes Quantum Mechanics pop out.

If that's interesting, lemme know!

I wouldn't say I'm not interested but I'm affraid my brain will overload and self explode after hearing such difficult theory! I'm trying to transfer from the economics course to the physics course by the way! I'm affraid I will have to pass a test on basic undergraduate physics to do so!

Hi JustMax!

How many Quantum Physicists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Two. Three to change the lightbulb and one to renormalise the function.

My favourite joke (not that I know many). It seems to make NTs bleed out of the ears too. Or change the conversation topic really quickly.

I've not studied physics for a few years now, but it still fascinates me. Unfortunately I got lost with my ability to do the requisite maths somewhere around green's theorem in the plane and so I tend to avoid any physics that needs calculus. I love getting my head around explanations of the theory though I do geek about physics less these days as I tend to geek more about computers instead.

I hope you find this place fun

All geek to me topic

If you can do the bold thing above, Cal Tech or MIT might be interested.

I only have high school physics/math so I understand the gist of what you write. I have read a few books on particle physics (written for the public) and general/special relativity (explained and made visual for picture thinkers )

I like to read the biographies of famous physicists/cosmologists so that I can understand the roots of their interest in quantum theory, big bang, unification, string theory and the like.
Absolutely fascinating.

*gives the secret physicist sign by putting hands into left-hand-rule and right-hand-rule positions*

Go on, do tell.

Aah, I used to spend hours and hours with a couple of stoner friends lost in conversations like that...glory days...

geeking out science,any science,is one of the very few pleasures i have in my life
Never understood why NT can't stand it
how come what is so exiting for us is so boring to them, and vice versa ?
That's another topic i can get exited and obssesed about
and in my mad scientists mind the difference between us and the NT can be explained by using physic much better than using the psychology
i use gravity well and event horizon and such terms in order to explain myself to myself and i'm sure many AS sense the curving of space-time intuitively even without them knowing general relativity

Waiting for the peer review.

I'm a fan of Modified Newtonian with granular space/time. Makes the singularities go away.

Heh, left hand and right hand rule are just a rotation of reference frames!


I have to run some errands, but http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=976477&da=y is a non-mathematical, more layman friendly version I've been working on.

I'm both excited and disappointed.

I've only given it out to perhaps 100 people, but it has like 1600 views, so SOMEONE has been showing it to others, but I've yet to receive solid feedback.

Don't know where to find peer review, I'm an autodidact, technically I stopped school before I started it, when I found out I was testing at high school graduate level early on, I wondered what I was doing there.


Basically, if you know what the Abraham-Lorentz force is, the pathological pre-acceleration solutions implied this to me. There are other such results that crop up, but that one in particular led me to rethink a couple of things, and I noticed that the value for the Rate of Time constant in the GR Gravitational Redshift equations was set so the Rate = 1 occurs at infinite distance from a gravity well.

This means it occurs in flat spacetime, at 0 mass. So the most anything can interact with time hits right at 0 mass. Preserving causality absolutely. Einstein set it there to do that, if you don't, you get extended temporal interaction to explain, which describes quantum mechanics and satisfies the Bell Inequalities!


I'll go more into detail later.

How many friends of Wigner does it take to change a lightbulb?

n-1

One to change it, one to observe she changed it, one to observe the observation, another to observe that one, etc...


Incidentally, the renormalization problem drives me nuts, I'm with Feynman there, it is a daffy process.

Like realizing you got infinite values balancing your checkbook, deciding to cut them off where you feel they should be, then applying the negative to cancel the other infinity.


LITERALLY!


"Oops, that shouldn't be there... let's just erase it... hey look, it works!"



If I'm correct about this extended temporal interaction, you'd modify the time dilation formula to express it.

In the normal realm of GR, upwards from our masses/velocities, you get the usual rate of time values between 0 and 1, with 0 occuring at infinite mass/light speed, though I actually argue you should calculate the radius of the Universe, and determine how much mass interaction that would represent, and place 0 at that point, because you can't interact with infinite distances in a finite Universe.

Then you swing down through our scale, where we KNOW we are around a Rate = .97 or so value, we are not far from R = 1, yet it is supposed to flatten out to bridge the gap between our mass, and 0 mass?

Instead, I suggest the Planck Mass is a natural point for this coincidence value to be placed. It is the observed scale where quantum effects become important, it is tied to the rest of the constants in a natural fashion (the planck mass is the weight of a black hole with a planck length event horizon).

Now, simply continue the curve naturally from there.



I originally just had it bounce, but that's not as elegant, though it shows my original thought process well.



Now, if THAT is true, and my intuitive relation between the scale of the Universe and mass and such holds, then I have an issue... these new interactions I've produced don't fit in General Relativity as it stands, they don't conflict with it... but they haven't been observed... have they?


So I began thinking about this, if an object interacted with MORE time than a purely causal type of interaction from our perspective, it would view periods of time we describe as being in the past and future as simultaneous!

Holy crap!


So the condition of an object that I see overlapping the present, depends on the state in the broader present it covers. So parts of the future and past from my point of view are affecting the present.

Changes in my view of the present affect the period I observe it spanning, and the back and forth self interaction would perfectly explain the uncertainty principle.



!

So I considered, if the mass determines how far it is extended through time, then that determines how far the self interaction is important, if you see where I'm going, awesome, you kept up.

Renormalization arises because calculating the self interaction requires considering the interaction of the self interactions, the interactions of those new interactions, like the friends of Wigner joke up there.

So you say "ok, the interactions beyond THIS point don't matter" and cancel everything outside of there out, calculate it in that limited form, then re-expand it to the limits again and it works... but no one really knows why.


If a particle only had a defined spread through time where the self interaction mattered, then it would naturally provide it's own renormalization point, and in fact wouldn't NEED to be renormalized!


I'll let ya breathe while I think a little more, feels good to let this stuff out fully.

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.

Let me see if I'm getting the gist of what you're saying:

"The lower a particle's mass or the higher its energy, the broader the range of interaction it has with its past and future self. This interaction gives rise to behaviour which appears random in the present, but is in fact deterministic."

I like you.


That's it in a nutshell.


It isn't fully deterministic, in that the sum possible microstates of a history are all present within a coarse grained 4 D Universe, but if you were able to observe the full spread of the interaction you would see that it isn't paradoxical causal violations, or mysterious action at a distance.

...maybe because most NTs prefer babes, ball, and brewskis as subjects of conversation.

Knowledge frightens some people, and bores the rest....it's a sad world.

Has a teenager I was reading a lot of stuffs on physic wrinting for the great public. Still do sometimes. I wish I was smart and disciplined enough so I could have learn all this advanced stuff. I can't even do integers. From what I understand of your finding it could a real revolution in physic. To the point that if you're right and that you're recognised the Nobel will only be a little formality. It is what physicists search for since near a century. A theory uniting the realtivity and the quantum world.
Yet a lot of it elude me... If I was born smarter I would had been one of the first to understand and "tasting" your theory, but.... Well, too bad...
Your last part make me think of the string theory. For what I understand at least...

By the way, there a lot of people passionate by physic who are not asperger... Maybe asperger can make it more intense, but that's about it. Most asperger are not interested by physic or math either. (By that I will also say that from what I read on your posts, I think there is good chances you are indeed asperger.)

Oh, I know it doesn't automatically make you into a physics lover, just recognizing that an aspy with physics love would want to rant and communicate just as much as any other, but it's a much harder subject to find people who can even give feedback beyond "whoa, that's crazy."


I'm sure Einstein realized what I'm talking about, but didn't want to accept a Universe that wasn't purely causal and local.