Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,050 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 476,150
Pageviews Today: 1,405,640Threads Today: 927Posts Today: 17,887
11:27 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Linking General relativity and Quantum mechanics

 
spacetime bungee jump
User ID: 811057
United Kingdom
11/05/2009 01:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Linking General relativity and Quantum mechanics
Hello there everybody,

I've never posted here before - As I'm not a huge advocate of most conspiracy theories . However I am interested in Science and its role in philosophy (I specialise in physics), however I realise that due to the largely conservative way in which science progresses, new lateral steps in thinking dont come easily to most of the scientific community. Therefore, for general creative scientific discussion, sites such as this are a great source of open minded people. I dont expect everybody to have a huge subject knowledge of certain aspects of science, but everyone is welcome to add their own thoughts. It is also likely that there will be at least some people on the site that do have a good background knowledge, and I would love any contribution if your time permits.

I'll just outline some aspects of a framework that I've been working on for about a year now - I'm not claiming it to be gospel, but I hope that If I mention a few concepts and show my logic, it may encourage you to think of things differently and post your own ideas.

The framework began as a way to explain to people certain hard to grasp concepts in a simple visual way (think Feynman)so that more people could understand them, but it has grown considerably and brings up a few new ideas. Like Einstein said - 'If a theory cannot be explained to a child, its probably wrong'

(Although I said it was supposed to be a visual model, lots of mathematics have followed, however they do not detract from the original concepts)

I'll try to keep this as simple and accessible as possible.

------------------------------------------------------------


Before I begin, here is something to keep in the back of your mind before I explain my framework.

Estimates give the age of our universe at around 14 billion years old. As all information is limited at moving through space at no greater than the speed of light (this includes visible light and all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum)Therefore, any observer can observe a maximum distance of 14 billion lightyears. (any further, and the information has not had time to reach us!)

If you look up, down, left or right, the furthest you can observe is a distance of 14 billioin light years. Effectively creating a spherical observable universe that is 14 billion light years in radius with the observer exactly in the centre. It can be a daunting thing to realise that you are infact the centre of your own universe! However, remember that when a photon hits an atom or interacts with any other particle it is effectively being observed, thus creating a situation where all particles of matter, be it inside me, you or a star on the other side of the galaxy are all the centre of the universe.

This is a somewhat hard thing to get your head around, but dont worry it gets better. Like me, you are at the centre of your own observable universe. If we assume that something can be observed, we can say it to be 'real', in other words, you are in the centre of your reality. This for some strange reason seems to be more comprehensible to people, even though all we have done is change the word to describe our universe. The hard concept to grasp is the fact that everything is simultaneously the centre of the universe. We can easily fix this however if we take a simlpe leap of logic.

Everything is made of energy, as E=mc^2so elegantly puts it. But if everything is made of the exact same 'stuff', where does form come from? How do we get seperate 'things' and forces?. The answer is simple.

Imagine you have an infinitely large piece of paper, and you shade this piece of paper with a pencil (a very big pencil!) untill it is completely covered. Imagine this infinite, shaded piece of paper represents an infinite 'sea' of energy. Any point on this paper is infinitely far away from the edge of the page - every point is the centre of the paper. Now you take an eraser, and you erase a small circular shape on the paper. You have created an 'emptiness', an absence of energy. This absence has form and shape, yet it is not made of anything! It is simply empty space! In other words, energy is the substance from which things are made, and it is the absence of energy, also known as Space, which changes over time, that gives the illusion of seperate objects - NOTHING physically seperates them. Space and time are a construct which creates form.

The framework I have so far, points to a structure of quantum space that gives rise to the orbital shapes around atoms, however by aplying a symetry that arises from scale being a relative measurement, this pattern opens up and becomes fractal like. I wont go into detail on this here, because the fractal I have may not necessarily be 'the one' but the fact that a fractal arose in the first place is a good sign (as we obviously observe them everywhere).

Those of you with a knowledge of calabi yau manifolds in string theory will know that the space is hidiously complex and remains a closed space, leading string theorists to believe that the calabi yau space is simply a repeated unit within the spatial fabric, but not necessarily the overall shape of the entire fabric. This to me seems odd, and my current model has a structure that does open up, and undergoes changes at different points within the pattern.

Here is a simple description of the space I have. (this wont be easy)

Imagine a spatial dimension, lets say its the left-right extended spatial dimension in our universe. We normally think of left right as being a long straight line dimension that extends to infinity to our left, and off to infinity to our right. However, my model points to a space, where left-right is actually a distorted circular dimension. Think of it as being a rubber band. This rubber band has been stretched so much that in its length direction it is so long that it reaches from one end of the universe to the other, however this has led to it becoming very small in its width, where at its widest width point, it is only one Planck length wide. (the Planck length is the smallest length of space that we are allowed to measure). For all general purposes then it IS a straight line, but on very close inspection, it is actually a very long but narrow circle.

So space itself curves in on itself at the edge of the universe, but wraps around a planck size barrier at its centre. If we extend this to include all planes of rotation in the up-down, and forward-back planes, we end up with a pattern where we have a spherical universe, where the outer edge is caused by the space curving back in outself and not escaping (Black hole event horizon anybody?)and another sphere of emptiness that is the planck length in diameter exactly in the centre. The outer membrane of this tiny sphere is like another evernt horizon.

Now this pattern opens up and becomes fractal like when a symetry is applied (I wont go into it here), but these spherical membranes keep popping up as you zoom out of the pattern. In each case they behave as an event horizon.

Now those of you who have read any Martin Rees (the astronomer Royal) will probably have come across just 6 numbers, where he shows the logarithmic scale of size the universe. On one side is the quantum, on the other is the cosmic, universe scale, and exactly in the middle, straddling the quantum and the cosmos, is LIFE. Is it coincidence that life exist perfectly between the quantum and cosmos? well I dont think it is and here is why.

Within my framework, It appears that our universe actually contains 3 'event horizons' (in terms of spatial scale). One is the Planck distance horizon, one is the edge of the uinverse Horizon, and the third occurs at the celuar scale within life itself. What does this mean for us?

Well it means that we can look below us and see space behaving in discrete tiny quanta, and it means we can look above us in terms of scale, and observe the continuous nature of space as gravity moves things through space, however the point where these two scales come together but never actually touch is an event horizon that exists within the nucleus of a cell. I wont go into this here but I'm colloborating with a biologist who is studying an unknown force inside the cell during mitosis. He believes there is a form of 'gravity well' that causes genetic material to condense around the centriole, and then causes the non local seperation and quater turn of the microtubiules. So far, this is the only explaination (not many biologists study the spatial fabric, and not many physicists study cells!). Within my model, I also find that as we cross each event horizon, a seperation and quater turn arises - responsible for the effect in around the centriole, and in quantum mechanics, it occurs twice to give a half integer value of spin for all fermions.

So perhaps the reason that the quantum mechanics and general relativity do not fuse together, is because space is wrapped around or bounded by these event horizons, and we just happen to BE the boundry between the quantum and the macro. If this seems far fetched, remeber that in biology, we look at DNA and individual molecules that make up proteins, Both of these are effected by quantum events. We then build up the picture to look at larger protein structure, organelles within cells, actual cells, and the multicelluar tissues and eventually whole organisms. These are effected by macro forces like gravity, and not at all quantum. So the jump from quantum to macro MUST appear within the scale of celluar life. If my model is correct this happens around the centriole.

The complexity of life would then be down to the fact that on this event horizon, both quantum and macro forces occur simulatniously (the only place where this happens in the universe) as a result, we have huge complexity and diversity. The reason why physicists are yet to find the link is because they havent looked within themselves to find it. They are looking out into the world when they should be looking within. (A slight Play on word I know)

I will leave this here for now, and let you guys give some input. If I get a good response I may add more detail to aspects and go seeper into some of the more obscure concepts
------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks for your time if you've read this far. I'll catch you guys later
spacetime bungee jump (OP)
User ID: 811057
United Kingdom
11/05/2009 01:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Linking General relativity and Quantum mechanics
The Universe is a hugely complicated system, and all of the interactions and forces are a result of this fractal space. As space is simply a construct and not a physical barrier, the energy within the universe is almost 'thinking' of the space and behaving as if it was a real barrier.

However, imagine the amount of computational power that would be needed to compute this fractal and all of the complexity and form it leads to.

The universe posseses this power, but that is simply because, before it created this fractal, space and time did not exist. So if time did not exist even the longest calculation would be instantaneous. Thats how the universe was able to create itself.

No computer in our universe could ever calculate the universe it exists in, because it exists within the time of our universe. Only in the absence of time, could it be calculated.

That leads me on to something - everynight we go to sleep, we are able to run this calculation ourselves, and create our own reality. Think of the complexity that exists in simply touching an object - the amount of atoms present, the sum of all the electromagnetic repulsive forces between the atoms in your fingers and the atoms in the object. Think of the heat of the object - the average kinetic energy of millions of atoms. Somehow you can calculate this in your head INSTANTLY whenever you dream. So our consciousness must actually exist outside of space and time in order for us to do this.

Just another little thing I was thinking about the other day
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 804868
United States
11/05/2009 01:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Linking General relativity and Quantum mechanics
They will never be fully linked because they cannot co exist. Tesla looked over Einstein's theory of relativity and laughed it off saying

"magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists .."
spacetime bungee jump (OP)
User ID: 811057
United Kingdom
11/05/2009 02:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Linking General relativity and Quantum mechanics
They will never be fully linked because they cannot co exist. Tesla looked over Einstein's theory of relativity and laughed it off saying

"magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists .."
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 804868


good old tesla

I'm not a huge fan of the way general relativity was considered a revolution in science. The error in my opinion, is that it explains the effects of gravity, but now what it actually is as many people believe.

Space needs to be considered on the scale of the quantum foam and built up, not described in terms of its averaged out smooth topography in the cosmic sense and then worked down.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 811047
United Kingdom
11/05/2009 02:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Linking General relativity and Quantum mechanics
They will never be fully linked because they cannot co exist. Tesla looked over Einstein's theory of relativity and laughed it off saying

"magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists .."
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 804868


Tesla was the man!

He proved, time and again, that Electricity runs the Universe, not gravity (which is 46 orders of magnitude weaker).

99.999% of the Universe is made of plasma, and provides an almost perfect conductor for Galaxy-sized Birkeland currents.

Everything is Electric!
Qualia
User ID: 664538
United States
11/05/2009 02:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Linking General relativity and Quantum mechanics
Now this pattern opens up and becomes fractal like when a symetry is applied (I wont go into it here)...
 Quoting: spacetime bungee jump 811057



Why not? Fractality seems to me to be the most relative aspect of our existence wherein removing ourselves from the closed system is concerned...if one cares not to exist within a closed system, that is.


Well it means that we can look below us and see space behaving in discrete tiny quanta, and it means we can look above us in terms of scale, and observe the continuous nature of space as gravity moves things through space, however the point where these two scales come together but never actually touch is an event horizon that exists within the nucleus of a cell. I wont go into this here but I'm colloborating with a biologist who is studying an unknown force inside the cell during mitosis. He believes there is a form of 'gravity well' that causes genetic material to condense around the centriole, and then causes the non local seperation and quater turn of the microtubiules.
 Quoting: spacetime bungee jump 811057


It may be a wild haired propostion, but perhaps the "gravity well" is produced by the inception of a vacuum state?


Also, interesting to read your rubberband example. I've often thoughtfully touched on a vision/mind picture of a rubberband while considering such things, but was never able to take it to fruition. Thanks for the example!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 793798
Canada
11/05/2009 02:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Linking General relativity and Quantum mechanics
I used to love science, in particular math, quantum mechanics and special/general relativity.

One day, however, I saw how frontier science was merely a repackaged model of the occult, using a language and ritual (observation/experimentation) that linguistically and philosophically distances itself from the stigma of occult superstition.

That science works as a model at all merely underscores a correlation between the natural world and that of the cognitive; it in no way implies discovery at its most basic level (ie, truth).

I personally believe that someone or several someone's is selling us a lemon when it comes to all of scientific academia past the grade school level.
dead horse
User ID: 811070
United States
11/05/2009 02:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Linking General relativity and Quantum mechanics
If you cannot find an example in the world around you, the theory is more than likely incorrect. I applaud you for thinking outside the box, however your feet are still mired in the bog of currently accepted science. Trying to build a house on 2 bad foundations is not necessarily a smart move. Please explain your goal with this new theory.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 794685
United States
11/05/2009 02:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Linking General relativity and Quantum mechanics
He believes there is a form of 'gravity well' that causes genetic material to condense around the centriole, and then causes the non local seperation and quater turn of the microtubiules.
 Quoting: spacetime bungee jump 811057



Gravity is a wave and there are two different types of gravity. Gravity A and gravity B. Gravity A works on a small or micro scale and gravity B works on a larger or macro scale. We're familiar with gravity B, it is the big gravity wave that holds the earth, as well as the rest of the planets in orbit around the sun and holds the moon, as well as man-made satellites, in orbit around the earth. We're not familiar with gravity A. It is the small gravity wave which is the major contributory force that holds together the mass that makes up all protons and neutrons.
spacetime bungee jump (OP)
User ID: 811057
United Kingdom
11/05/2009 02:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Linking General relativity and Quantum mechanics
Thanks for the replies so far,

I decided not to go into the fractal space as it would take me hours to explain it in words without mathematics. For example:

The fractal is similar to the hybridised orbitals around an atom (remember the dumbell shaped P orbitals?) Well basically, when you apply the symetry where a circular dimensioin of radius R is equivalent to a circular dimension with a ridius of 1/R the dumbell shape splits open and then the tips of the dumbells become the central point of a larger set of dumbells that have been rotated through 90 degrees. I'm sorry that doesnt help at all I know, but this language is not very good at explaing such things. I'll design some animations to show it quite simply.

In response to the comments about the occult, I dont think you can frown at science simply because you believe it to be an occult art - The universe has existed long before these occult groups formed, and science is simply the art of understanding the universe. It was just Hijacked by these occult groups of people hundreds of years ago. If anything, I just want to get scientific creative thinking to be a widely discussed topic by the general public.

I understand the comment on building a model on currently accepted science. I personally have created my model from first principles, and I dont fully accept all current theories - As I said, I'm not fully convinced by General relativity, and the standard model of particle physics is too much of a mess to be fundamental.

I would say that my goal in developing my framework is simply to know as best I can how the universe came to be the way it is and how it works - hopefully, that will put me in the best possible place to find out WHY it came to be.

Thanks for commenting so far
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 488775
United States
11/05/2009 03:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Linking General relativity and Quantum mechanics
Well, there is all the theories, and so far I like the Holographic Universe model. How long can nothing exist? If you state forever, then you have just created time - in the respect of time creating its self. As how the Universe created its self (or had a pushing finger in the correct direction - Antrotrophic (sp) Principle) then the fine constants of the Universe are there for a reason and must be in a certain value range.
I just equate the Holographic Universe as so much energy as to create the form of the Universe, and whether it as I understand what you stated ends up as a donut shape upon its self is something that other scientists (one of which I am not) equate as a flat membrane and in the case of the Universe it is flat and like a membrane (I think D or P whatever it is) and parallel membranes all exist in whatever form whatever anyone thinks is coming out next.
Sorry, but that is all the further I have gotten, but for some reason, I doubt if one can equate it in the end to a black hole event horizen, because I think if there is only a singularity, it is naked and of its own form (which would be like the Universe and what lies beyond the universe).
There it becomes muddled to me, but still the form that can be created with the interactions of the 'call it waves' creates the illusion of all the form that is it is all a construct or abstract form that contains everything that we can know. To reach outside the box (the cat of Shroginger's (sp) equation) reaches to a dealing with Maxwell's equations and Fourier Transforms. Don't expect me to do the math of that as I would have to really study all of that and I think some people have to a degree. I always thought string theory or superstring theory was a degree off of that, but not dealing with that aspect of the Spacetime that I now only call - "Time" or "Existence".
First there was a Time and then Space was created to contain the all of what Time could create in a defined way.
That may be stated perhaps as Energy, but somewhere along the way to me Time and Energy have to be equated together and Space is a by-product of that as well as fractals and anything else.

Well............................that is all I can go.
I am not here nor am I not here.
The Universe is Not Enough!
Perhaps it is, and perhaps it is not.
Perhaps Time will tell all, perhaps not.
I leave confused as always.
Cat InABoxOfTheMind
User ID: 465669
United States
11/05/2009 09:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Linking General relativity and Quantum mechanics
You do realize that no matter how elegant your models and theories get, you are still attempting to discover the secrets of the Universe by shattering it into concepts and thoughts? How can you discover a "unified field" if you keep breaking it apart with the mind?

Current physics and your theory are merely describing subtle aspects of the endlessly elaborating and twisted mazes of the mind fractal. Making it more elaborate and inventing a new "Paper and String Theory" only wraps Schroedinger's cat in a fancier box.

Doing physics from this left-brain "objectivity" creates artifacts, e.g. time/space, probability, wave/particle duality, Heisenberg uncertainty, etc. Pitiful models with lots of defects.

Hopefully, mainstream physics will someday realize this and call it what it is: "The Physics of the Limited Mind," and move on to physics of other things, like maybe, the Universe.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1198918
United States
12/18/2010 02:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Linking General relativity and Quantum mechanics
I think quantum mechanics and relativity are both correct. I think they resemble both fruits on trees, one grows oranges and the other grows apples. Both are correct and 100% accurate.





GLP