Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Gravostrong ? TOE advise needed

  1. Jan 7, 2009 #1
    I'm trying to build an explanatory theory that encompasses both the standard and cosmological standard models (isn't everyone ?)

    I'd appreciate some help with some questions I have;

    1) Is there any reason to be sure/confident that the strong nuclear force is not directly linked with gravity in the same way the other two forces are ?

    2) Why are quarks (+gluon field etc) considered to carry the mass - rather than gravitation being seen as a fundamental property of the strong nuclear force, in much the same way that electromagnetic forces are fundamentally connected to to the weak force ?

    3) Considering...

    -the 'multiplicity of entities' involved in theories of dark matter
    -the complete lack of testable evidence for the multiverse
    -the suggestive evidence of extra dimensions (quasi-crystals, the 'leak' of gravity, M-Theory maths etc)

    ...is there any reason not to believe that we view things from an unusual perspective relative the the totality of the universe ? Do we really 'filter out' extra dimensions as a result of them being curled up in imaginary Cartesian points, or could the apparent dimensionality of M theory be more like an interlaced series of interwoven 'bands of nature' ?

    4) Could it be that we have space, time and frequency dimensions ? With brane-like divisions between the three of them ? Thus we could potentially have the electroweak dimension, the gravostrong dimension, and possibly others.

    I'd appreciate any constructive criticism for the last two 'questions', as well as answers to the others :)


  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 7, 2009 #2
    If you have time and frequency dimensions, then why not space and momentum dimensions ?
  4. Jan 7, 2009 #3
    Momentum does not seem to be a fundamental boundary phenomena to me. Although of course velocity itself does have qualities that seem to be relevant to this kind of dimensionality, and electroweak energy certainly has no momentum. I'm just trying to get to what is the most fundamental aspects but am not certain that "frequency dimensions" is the best in that way yet.
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2009
  5. Jan 10, 2009 #4
    Why is it that the fundamental constituents of matter correspond directly to specific bounded stripes within the EM spectrum ? Do they absorb the corresponding frequency band because they happen to correspond to that frequency ? Or is there an extended version of minowski space where it would be a natural correlation ?
  6. Jan 11, 2009 #5

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    I would strongly encourage you to study what the present theories say and what the experimental constraints are before trying to build your very own theory of everything.
  7. Jan 11, 2009 #6
    do you mean an electroweak brane and a gravostrong brane and possibly others?
  8. Feb 2, 2009 #7
    Yes what I'm thinking of could be expressed that way - quite a useful way of phrasing it actualy. The way they are interwoven is what makes it interesting. Our 3D space becomes an emergent property - providing the relativistic and dynamic background. A bit like the reverse of a hologram in their interaction.

    One thing I like is that the... lets say branes ... can each be affected on a larger scale by the general presence of matter (or energy) in a region of the brane. So around a galaxy for example, the presence of matter causes the brane itself to swell, changing the supposed constant of vacuum energy (the base energy plateaux), thus increasing the effect of gravity in that region as a whole. Likewise in regions where there is no significant amount of matter, there is actually an anti-gravity like effect (lets leave De Sitter inflation in the early universe to the side for now).

    This seems to me to offer some significant explanatory powers towards areas where we currently have 'dark' place holding labels. However, as Vanadium 50 suggests, my grasp of the equations is not sufficient to produce a quantitative theory. That said I believe we have the ability to test some elements of this.
  9. Feb 9, 2009 #8
    Why does "EM radiation" travel at the same speed (velocity ? :) to all observers ?

    Unless you try to answer the basic questions, and you have plenty of framework labels now to start to address them substantially, you will keep inventing constants and particles and even universes.

    Perhaps I should be posting on a different forum as you guys seem to be expert at those inventions ?

    And in terms of labels, lets forget "branes" and "dimensions". Lets instead talk of something else, like layers of energy maybe. Our bodies and our detectors sit in a layer of gravostrong qualtities - velocity is relative etc. EM radiation sits in a different layer where mass does not exist. Pass an electric current through a material and a different type of EM radiation can be 'emitted' (say photons). That which is emitted also travels at c, but appears to be packaged in units. Those units can be characterised by a Plank notion. Those units only clearly appear when there has been a medium in a layer where gravity is present to that medium.

    Just bear with me a second. It appears that its in that interaction between these layers where the quantised nature appears. That's why we must forget (for now) branes to explain this. Even within atoms (supposedly of the gravostrong world) the layers appear. The nucleus is in one layer, the orbitals in another. In this other layer they appear fuzzy and random, but they are not! They are just in a different layer from what we call 'normal', even though we see and examine that 'world' all the time.

    I can't help wondering about the old and well refuted picture of an atom as a solar system. Whats going on in stars - and supernovas especially - is more amazing than we can imagine just yet. Energy building up in one that bursts into another!

    But I digress. I'd love some criticism of some of the basic things I'm suggesting. I'm (testily) claiming that I can explain both dark matter and dark energy using basic physics. The vacuum of dynamic space has a base energy that naturally expands (call it G or Feynmans quantum value). Matter sits on top of that energy curtain/plateau and draws energy from it (on the large scale - say R). So it strengthens the forces that act in that layer (on an R scale). We could call it "dark matter" if we wanted a label.

    The energy of the plateau-space in the regions where matter does not exist, experience the full force of the 'vacuum energy' - lets call it inflation.

    It seems almost like the way those who imagine de sitter inflation think of a vast energy spawning universes, is actually more like this vast energy spawning matter in this one universe we exist in. The first hydrogen atom jumps like a new universe into existence, and is followed by many. Its like the vast amount of energy condensed into a new layer where its nature changed in its nucleus. No longer was energy pulsing at (what appears to us from here) an infinite rate, it became something called matter which can then, surprisingly (due to the amazing fundamentals), interact with that which does not experience time, within time.

    I strongly believe that unless we truly understand why electromagnetic radiation is so different from what we call matter, we will never unite gravity with the quantum formalism. That difference is the key to understanding a lot more than we do now, but still lacks so much to make it a real understanding.

    These 'particles' that strike earth with an energy that seems too high according to the forces we know, make me wonder how many layers there are. It seems that the layers are interwoven in a way that branes and layers doesn't really explain.

    So I'm still left missing the maths. Can anyone help me with that ?
  10. Feb 11, 2009 #9
    Can no one answer me one basic question - what is the difference between weightless 'stuff' that travels at c and matter that quantifiably experiences time ?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook