Physical Law of Scale - Hypothesis
This stems back to the first idea I ever had which I seriously considered, back even before I was ever part of interlocution club. (a little club I started with a friend back in high school)
the whole idea had to do with the hypothesis that all forces were the same force. For instance, I knew somethings about atomic structure - i don't know if I interpreted it correctly - but I knew that there was a force that bonds atomic nuclei together, and this force works good up until the size of the nucleus gets to be over something like 88nm.
I immediately compared that to how gravity works, like if a pair of gravitational objects were at a certain radius, they come closer together, and beyond that radius, they move outwards.
So I thought, that maybe the thing is scalar, and I drew a graph which looks like this;
[I drew a graph which has scale as a dimension (x-axis right to left), and I drew the relevance of each force in the system's behavior (really abstract) as the y-axis.]
what I meant by it, was that the greater you go out in scale there is a kind of pattern - as crude an estimation as it is - it's all part of the same thing, one thing, not all these different forces but all part of one governing rule.
Principles are a lot like this too, for instance if you were to apply Heisenberg's principle to our world the world we know and perceive, we know that this principle would be ridiculous, you can know both the position and velocity of an object - or at least a close enough approximation for the objects involved.
I thought then that maybe time is the measure of comparative change, and in the world of small things, there is more change, in a way, so there is more time when comparing one thing to another down there, a bunch of stuff is happening really fast.
In the world of the really big, galaxies and stuff, things appear to be going real slow in comparison to itself, its not moving real fast like of these smaller things. Therefore comparative time (rate of change), appears to be slower for these big systems.
I thought that maybe the principles (or laws) which guide interactions and behaviors at one size may not govern it in another.
That's how I came up with this conflicting metric theory, that distances don't equal the sum of their constituent parts. (non relativistically that would mean the speed of light depends upon the distance used to measure it, where any 'distance is defined by some measure of another distance, like compared to some long wooden stick - like a ruler'
Instead of getting caught up in definition contradictions, I defined what the definition of time and distance is, it's a measure of comparative change, not absolute, but dependent upon the scale of the system involved.
As a result I believe there should exist some form of transformation of physical laws from one scale to the next.
the whole idea had to do with the hypothesis that all forces were the same force. For instance, I knew somethings about atomic structure - i don't know if I interpreted it correctly - but I knew that there was a force that bonds atomic nuclei together, and this force works good up until the size of the nucleus gets to be over something like 88nm.
I immediately compared that to how gravity works, like if a pair of gravitational objects were at a certain radius, they come closer together, and beyond that radius, they move outwards.
So I thought, that maybe the thing is scalar, and I drew a graph which looks like this;
[I drew a graph which has scale as a dimension (x-axis right to left), and I drew the relevance of each force in the system's behavior (really abstract) as the y-axis.]
what I meant by it, was that the greater you go out in scale there is a kind of pattern - as crude an estimation as it is - it's all part of the same thing, one thing, not all these different forces but all part of one governing rule.
Principles are a lot like this too, for instance if you were to apply Heisenberg's principle to our world the world we know and perceive, we know that this principle would be ridiculous, you can know both the position and velocity of an object - or at least a close enough approximation for the objects involved.
I thought then that maybe time is the measure of comparative change, and in the world of small things, there is more change, in a way, so there is more time when comparing one thing to another down there, a bunch of stuff is happening really fast.
In the world of the really big, galaxies and stuff, things appear to be going real slow in comparison to itself, its not moving real fast like of these smaller things. Therefore comparative time (rate of change), appears to be slower for these big systems.
I thought that maybe the principles (or laws) which guide interactions and behaviors at one size may not govern it in another.
That's how I came up with this conflicting metric theory, that distances don't equal the sum of their constituent parts. (non relativistically that would mean the speed of light depends upon the distance used to measure it, where any 'distance is defined by some measure of another distance, like compared to some long wooden stick - like a ruler'
Instead of getting caught up in definition contradictions, I defined what the definition of time and distance is, it's a measure of comparative change, not absolute, but dependent upon the scale of the system involved.
As a result I believe there should exist some form of transformation of physical laws from one scale to the next.
Total Comments 1
Comments
-
I re edited this because I did not want to make people think that I was some nut crack who believes the "the speed of light depends upon the distance used to measure it"
I was hoping that was the best way to describe the idea of it - but then I realized that the whole notion of "speed of light" cannot change for any distance really. Distances are defined in terms of the speed of light. but rather I assumed the notion that a distance be defined in terms of the length of some object say some long wooden stick - like a ruler.
I want to clarify that what I am stating is that the comparative distance described in terms of a wooden stick and in terms of the speed of light are not compatible metrics.
The following probably isn't a reflection of any conclusion drawn from experiment, it's purely imaginative and probably - like this whole theory - bogus.
Imagine if we were looking down on a small tiny group of particles, and we knew that they interact with each other in certain ways, and the influence one particle has on another is dependent upon how far it is away.
We observe two particles interact with each other much stronger than they should interact with each other, we might believe (and probably correctly) that we can not say that strength decreases with distance by the believed amount that something else is at play. Or we might explain it as a discrepancy between how we see the event, and how the two particles see each other. So the 'distance' which separate these two particles might be much less from their frame of reference; that some how by looking from our larger-scale perspective to theirs this discrepancy arises.
Imagine as though it were like this following example;
You take a meter stick and you put it end to end so that it extends 10 billion light years, at one end of this long line is observer A and at the other end is observer B. If either observer A were to compare their meter through current methods with a meter by observer B, observer A would conclude that the meter in his vicinity is smaller than observer B's, and vice versa.
The effects are not merely an illusion, if observer A were to measure an impulse the impulse will be spread out as though they were receding, but as time continued on, either object wouldn't appear to be any further away.
While this theory agrees with the notion that redshift is a measure of distance, it doesn't agree that redshift is the result of a recession velocity - Doppler Effect. It is on the basis that it is premature to attribute redshift as a solely as a recession velocity between these distant bodies and the observer.Posted Nov25-08 at 02:07 PM by WCOLtd 
Updated Nov29-08 at 11:24 AM by WCOLtd
