What Shapes Can We Visualize in the Fourth Dimension?

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

Fair comment.

However, I'm not entirely convinced about the gravitational lensing effect increasing the speed of light. All it means is that the streams of photons are deflected around the gravity well. Although they follow a slightly diverted course they are still moving at the same speed. If you are riding a motorbike at 40 mph and swerve around a rabbit in the road, your speed remains the same, it is only the distance traveled which is slightly longer. Localized gravitational lensing of incoming light around a star appears to 'bend' the photon stream but does not affect the actual speed. Due to the pretty fast movement of the photons it would be extremley difficult to detect any kind of velocity alteration on a localized level. The whole ethos of General Relativity relies upon the 'fact' that the speed of light is constant. Even increasing the speed of a single photon beyond this 'barrier' would cause dramatic effects - where the photon itself could very possible 'fall' out of the known universe!

As for supercooling space in such a manner as to bring photons to a halt ...

The abundance of space has a temperature a little above zero Kelvin - which is pretty supercool by anyone's standards! Photons appear to traverse these regions without difficulty. In fact, electrons move easier through a supercooled medium! There is less general resistance and an actual increase in conductivity. The idea of completely removing energy from a region of space in order to completely stop the photon flow seems bizarre to me considering that the universe itself (according to string theory) is very probably constructed by energy alone. Even at the above mentioned regions where the temperatures hover just above zero K, the energy structure of the space-time must remain intact and viable in order for that region to continue existing.

A matter for further ponderance, perhaps.

 

[selfAdjoint]

You are right and John's post about slowing light is incorrect. Light rays in gravitational lensing do not slow down, and it's dangerous to use earthly dynamics to try to understand them. What happens in gravitational lensing is that the light folows the best curved path it has available - since there are no straight paths in the curved spacetime near a gravitational source. These paths are called null geodesics and only things moving at the speed of light can use them. And light continues to move at the speed c as it follows them.

As light interacts with a gravitation field it may gain or lose energy and momentum, but the physics of light is such that that can happen without affecting its speed.

 

[John]

I thought about the coldness of space when I read about the experiment too. There are experiments that slow light to very slow speeds, in order to preserve the information in the light beam.

We know that light bends in water because the beam is slowing down in sections. The first "ray" hits the surface and slows down, then the second "ray" hits the surface a little later. Since the surface of the water is at an angle, the second ray slowed down later, and now the two rays continuing on parallel paths are going in a different direction. The first ray traveled a little farther before it slowed down.

It’s easy to say light curves around a star because the space is curved. The same thing can be said about a satellite. But if it goes at a different velocity, it follows a different curve, so it must have something to do with a force, not with the simple idea of the curve of space. The curve of space is expressing a force, maybe the same force that propels light through space.

When a glass lens, or water slows a ray of light to curve it, how does the light regain its speed after it leaves the lens? Light loses momentum, then regains it. That has to be due to a force pulling it along. In the experiment that freezes light, how does light regain its momentum after it slows down?

Through a high gravity field, light that is not originally on a path toward Earth would be accelerated into the sun, curving it. Then, as it passes the sun it would be pulled perpendicularly into the sun, curving it, then as it leaves it would be decelerated, curving it. Now it is heading straight for the earth. Light has curved and temporarily altered its velocity because it has gone through a space warped by gravity. At Indianapolis Motor Speedway or any race track, the cars slow down going through turns even of their power is always full on. At first you just attribute this fact to friction, but then you realize it is mathematical. It takes more energy to go around a curve than to go straight. If light keeps a consistent velocity while bending, energy has to be added to it.

If something is traveling at optimum velocity and energy, you can’t even pull it perpendicularly without adding energy or taking velocity from it.

Light probably accelerates and decelerates when passing through gravity. The literal points of space are stretched or warped. But light probably always travels from point to point in the same amount of time. That makes light appear consistent; space is very consistently dispersed; yet, if space is slightly warped by high gravity, light would temporarily accelerate and decelerate to curve by the sun.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I am afraid your ideas of light physics are all wrong. This is not some controversial subject, the physics of light has been understood since the early 20th century and quantum field theory has not changed the basics, although it has added a lot of fresh details and enabled some super calculations.

Planets in orbits do follow geodesics, but not null geodesics. Only massless objects can travel on null geodesics, and they travel at c in a vacuum. Even when the null geodesic curves in the neighborhood of a gravitating mass.

In your account of light refracting through glass, you destroy your own argument. You say the light first bends on entering the medium because it slows down, and then speeds up again when it leaves. Where did it get the energy to speed up? The environment of the light-in-glass was the same in the last centimeter of its travel through as in the first centimer. How could the one slow it down and the other speed it up? we're not talking gravitational slingshots here!

Really, I have to suggest you read up on physical optics, and take what you read seriously. I don't believe there is any branch of physics that is better established and more thoroughly understood than optics.

 

[John]

I remember a long time ago studying optics, and this was the explanation for how a lens curved light, by slowing it down. Okay, so how does a lens curve light?

Whether or not a lens slows light down, I have heard it is fairly well established that light slows down. When two people disagree on a point, they think that means someone is stupid or mistaken. But if light ever does slows down, then how does it regain its speed? People assume light is going at a certain velocity forever, but anything and everything going at certain velocity under momentum alone slows down. If you are moving under pure momentum, all you can do is continue at the same speed or slow down. Why doesn't light slow down? That's a good question. Maybe light is being powered through space by a hidden force? If light does slow down, how does it regain is velocity? I have heard that light slows down.

But I didn't realize the significance of those questions until I made a model for how light moves through the 9-dimensions of physical space. In my model, light is being pulled from point to point by a force. It travels from one point to the next in the same amount of time, even if the points, due to being warped by gravity are different distances apart. This idea of space made of points having distance between the points is gleaned from the concept of string theory. If points are strings, then a space made of strings is a structure of tetrahedrons. In that structure, you can only travel back and forth in six directions, which are the six extra physical dimensions of string theory. This agrees remarkably with the string theory idea of 9 spatial dimensions. If a structure of tetrahedrons had a different number of angles than six, the idea wouldn't be that significant. Strings can stretch and warp, and they can get longer. Gravitational warping of space is the lengthing of strings in a local area. It's local, so light would speed up and then slow down and end up traveling at the same average velocity that we always see.

We have no way of measuring the physical speed of light many light years away. We can confidently believe it always travels from one end of the string to the other in the same amount of time, no matter how long the string that makes up space is stretched. And if it is traveling along strings, or from point to point, we can know that it can only travel in the direction of the string. We only assume that the strings in distant space are the same length as the strings around us.

A television screen has five dimensions. It has the two dimensions of a plane; then it has the points or pixels that make up the screen, which are arranged in a pattern that produce lines going in only three directions, for three more dimensions. If lines shown on the screen go in different directions from the pixels, the lines can be squiggly. We can all see that. Some lines have to zigzag through the three flat dimensions of the pixels.

And on a TV screen, the pixels are farther apart on a larger screen and the picture is bigger. If we look at a TV screen through a telescope from a mile away we see the same picture whether it is a 19-inch or a 36-inch screen. If our section of the universe is a 36-inch screen, we just assume every part of the universe is a 36-inch screen. It may be a 19-inch screen or a 60-inch screen.

If an actor is walking across a 27-inch screen, and the size of the pixels on a slice of the screen were warped into that of a 36-inch screen, the actor would appear to speed up and then slow down, even though we know he is moving at a consistent pace.

Spaces, which have theoretical points, might be made entirely of (open-ended) strings.

 

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

I'm afraid I have to sit with selfAdjoint on this one.

As stated, the behavioural characteristics of optics are well established and can't be 'bent' towards your own theories regarding spatial points.

It's a little like saying, if the facts don't support the case then change the facts.

When a beam of light enters a denser medium (as in glass or water) the beam is refracted by the denser agglomeration of molecules. It isn't 'curved' away from its original path in the conventional sense of the word. It is refracted. This is basic stuff.

The speed of light is constant in our physical universe. Elsewhere, who knows?

I understand where you're coming from, but maybe your theories need a little more refining - perhaps by using what we do know as fact as foundation to your developing principles.

If it's any consolation, I like your ideas. Perhaps you're on to something. But I'd introduce established physical laws as rote, and not try to alter them to fit your assumptions.

 

[John]

It's not worth getting tripped up on optics. I mentioned something I thought I learned in school a long time ago. There was a graphic that showed how light slows in a denser medium and curves because the whole light beam doesn't slow at once. I read about another experiment recently where light was slowed to a very slow speed, then restored keeping all of the information in the light beam intact.

But my original idea was this. If a photon is traveling through space, couldn't it hit some other particle and lose some of its momentum? If a photon is free falling through space at a perfectly consistent speed, how does it maintain that momentum for billions of years over unperceivable distances?

A long time ago, I began to think that maybe space is made of points, and we travel from point to point. For example, light has to always go from point to point in a certain amount of time, like a clock. Though I knew at the time how a line could be a series of points, and light could travel down the line from point to point like a clock, I could not think of how space could be a series of points. I toyed with the idea in my head: that space was a conglomeration of points, and everything travels from point to point. I didn’t start with this: but an image on a TV screen is a conglomeration of points. As the image moves across the screen the points change colors, the image doesn’t actually move. That is an example of moving from point to point. When I discovered string theory, a lot of things I had considered as possibilities were part of string theory. I realized if space was made of points then the points have to be arranged in a pattern, and if light did travel from point to point it could only travel in six (I originally thought seven, but realized it’s six) directions. My longtime mistake to think it was seven got me excited because I thought string theory had seven extra dimensions. I was very disappointed when I heard that string theory space has six extra spatial dimensions, not seven. Then I actually took unsharpened pencils and constructed a "string space" with them, and found my version of string space actually did have six directions, not seven. The pencils lined up at six different angles. Light could only travel along the directions of the “pencils”, which represented strings.

Strings have a high tension, ten tons, and I thought if strings made up all of space, photons which might have some mass would be pulled from string-to-string by the tension of the strings. String theory predicts tachyons, which are faster than light particles. I theorized photons were really a bundle of three tachyons in a closed loop, and if the tachyons followed the six directions of the strings of space, the entire loop could go in an arbitrary direction, but each of the tachyons would have to go faster than light in order to keep up, because they are on average traveling at an angle of 30 degrees away from the direction of the photon which the three tachyons make. They pull on each other to keep the loop or bundle going in a particular direction.

But the bottom line is the most elementary particles travel on strings that only go in six directions, and they are actually pulled along like little clocks, which is how they maintain such a consistent pace. Later, I figured out how electrons could do the same thing, and in effect the motion of electrons pulls things through space maintaining the precise momentum the object has. That idea would tend to explain how objects change shape if the objects are going faster. If the energy of the electrons is maintaining the concept of momentum and also maintaining the size and shape of a molecule, when the object goes faster it also changes its size and shape.

 

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

I'm going to give this some serious rumination and return with a complimentary rejoinder.

 

[Jeebus]

Originally posted by John
But the bottom line is the most elementary particles travel on strings that only go in six directions, and they are actually pulled along like little clocks, which is how they maintain such a consistent pace. Later, I figured out how electrons could do the same thing, and in effect the motion of electrons pulls things through space maintaining the precise momentum the object has. That idea would tend to explain how objects change shape if the objects are going faster. If the energy of the electrons is maintaining the concept of momentum and also maintaining the size and shape of a molecule, when the object goes faster it also changes its size and shape.

One of the big problems with string theory is that it predicts strings to be so small that there would be no way to directly detect them. Thus, this makes it very difficult to produce a testable theory of strings. With quarks, there are ways to make testable predictions, even though we can't "see" the quarks in the common sense of the word. Strings, being so much smaller, are that much harder to deal with.

The reason why we like string theory is that it is mathematically elegant and helps to combine what are seemingly conflicting aspects of physics. And that's a great way to get something studied, but that doesn't make it true.

As one of the scientists on the recent Nova program on strings said, if string theory cannot be validated in the laboratory, then nobody should believe it.

 

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

I agree absolutely.

If I recall the Nova (BBC's 'Horizon' in the UK) program correctly, I think the commentator even asked the question 'will we ever be able to see superstrings?'

Since the only way we see things is by photons coming from an object and interacting with our retinas, it would be impossible to ever see superstrings in a conventional sense - because photons are so much bigger than superstrings, none are going to be reflected to show anything! Let's face it, we can't even 'see' a photon!

As for detecting them ... if all matter in the universe (even the tiniest exotic fundamental particles) are built from these 'alleged' superstrings how can we ever detect them - since detection involves either particles interacting with them or particles radiating from them. That would be like saying 'throw Jupiter at a grain of sand floating in space and see what reaction occurs'. Mmmmmmmm.

I think the scientists in the superstring camp are hedging their bets nicely.

Unless some neo-Einstein comes along to finish his Theory Of Everything succinctly, who's ever going to prove their theories wrong?

Well done, superstring scientists! You've played a blinder!

 

[selfAdjoint]

The hope of the string theorists is that some version of stringy physics will predict the standard model. Notice there is no current physical experiment except gravity ones that the Standard Model does not account for, but the theory itself has several unexplained features. Think of these as the finger holes in a glove. Then the hope of the string theorists is to build fingers from their theory to fit into that glove, and have no fingers left over.

If they could do that, they would have a very powerfuil theory. Every existing quantum field theory has a high energy sector where its predictions blow up (just as Einstein's GR predictions blow up at the black hole singularity). But string theory doesn't do this; it is its own high energy sector and its predictions should be good down to the Planck Level and even beyond. So if there was a seamless joining of string theory to the standard model, that would be in one sense a complete quantum theory. Of course it wouldn;t do gravity, so it wouldn't be a TOE, but it would be a great achievement.

 

[QuantumNet]

Four coordinates

Three dimensions.

A person who only believes in relativity cannot explain anything but relativistic effects.

Matter and charge is not here because of words,

Einstein used others theories, to make an integral among other things.

E = mc² is true and a consequence of that things happens slower in moving referencesystems than in still (refering to yourself).

If Einstein could not explain matter and charge, why do you think he could explain the creation of the universe?

Simply because there was a higher energy density before. Maybe the energy formed leptones in their turn forming homogene ethers in the universe. Let's say these particles obey gravity, but that they are everywere. That would explain why the universe can be seen to expand from every point.

You are evil if you can't accept new theories. Just like nazi bastards.

Best wishes Erik-Olof Wallman

 

[selfAdjoint]

You are evil if you can't accept new theories. Just like nazi bastards.

No more of that kind of attack, please. We can discuss civilly without insults.

 

[John]

Since lines of different lengths can’t logically have the same number of points, then that is a kind of mathematical proof that even theoretical points in space must have distance between them, which is what string theory assumes about point-particles. And string theory predicts multiple dimensions. Nobody can figure that out. What are multiple dimensions? The answer could be that strings are not only point particles, such as photons, but every point in space is a string.

If you draw points on a flat sheet of paper, and try to make the points equal distant apart, and then connect the points with straight lines, you get strings. Starting at any intersection, which is a string point, you will find that you can only go forward in three immediate directions. All travel from one point must be to a point directly next to it. You discover that you can only travel forward from where you are in three immediate directions. And when you get to the next intersection you can only travel forward in three immediate directions. You can travel in any direction if you zigzag through the strings, but at the most basic level you can only travel in three immediate directions.

And if you construct a 3D space out of strings, then you can only travel forward in six immediate directions, and string theory predicts six extra spatial dimensions. Here they are. I have found the extra dimensions! They are the limited number of immediate directions you can travel in a space constructed from points with a distance between them.

This is not about four dimensions, but this is where the discussion is. What about this new theory?

This theory I just described is THE answer to what multiple dimensions are. Not only that, but when you figure out how light travels though a space made of strings, you realize why light always travels at a constant speed, because it is pulled along from point to point. We know that strings have the energy of the strong force. One string snaps closed, pulling it's mass across the length of the string, then it triggers the next string to snap closed, pulling its mass across the length of that string. This is why light can maintain its speed for billions of miles and billions of years. This is really important knowledge, and if I could work with physicists, I could prove this is how it works.

 

[selfAdjoint]

John, you wrote

Since lines of different lengths can’t logically have the same number of points,

Visualize two line segments, a short one and a long one, horizontal and parallel a little distance apart, with the shorter one above. Draw a line through the left endpoints and project it up. Do the same at the right endpoints. These new lines will intersect in a point above the horizontal lines. For reference, call this point P

Now pick any point, say x in the short line. Draw a line from P through x and project it down to meet the long line. It will determine one and only one point on the long line where it intersects. This shows that for every point on the short line there is a unique corresponding point on the long line

Now pick a random point on the long line, call it u. Draw the line uP, it will intersect the short line in one and only one point, say v. This shows that for every point on the long line there is a unique corresponding point on the short line

These two statements together prove ]There is a one-to-one mapping between the set of all the points on the long line and the set of all the points on the short line. This is our modern definition of saying The two sets have the same cardinality, that is, number of members

Cheers,
selfAdjoint

 

[John]

Those are imaginary points. You are saying that a number line with numbers 1/1000th apart corresponds to a number line with numbers 1/1010 apart in the other line, because for unequal lines to have the same number of points, the points must have different values, so the for the number of points to be the same, the points themselves must have different values, which is a glaring contradiction. Numbers that are the same can't have different values.

 

[selfAdjoint]

John, you don't seem to understand the real number system. There are the same number of real numbers between 0 and 1 whether you put 0 and 1 a millimeter apart or a light year apart. Say you've got one lined segment from 0 to 1 and another that goes from 0 to a google (10¹⁰⁰). Any number in the first segment can be mapped into the second one by multiplying it by a google. Any number in the second can be mapped into the first by dividing it by a google. This is just the arithmetic version of the geometric argument I gave before. These are not imaginary - neither were the points in my previous example; you're just grasping at straws. .5 corresponds to .5X10¹⁰⁰ or 5X10¹⁰⁰. Each number is represented by a point half way along its respective line.

 

[John]

String theory says at the smallest levels points are strings having a particular length or value. Ironically, the real number system is not actually real. The Zeno Paradox kind of proves that.

We have to get mundane and unintellectual, and say that the numbers correspond to a certain absolute value, like, the value of one line is a hundred million strings. Half of that line has a value 500,000 strings. Two lines of different lengths can't logically have the same number of equal value points, and so you can't correspond every point in one line to every point in a line of a different length.

A point is really a string. The length of the string is its value. A point can't be just a point, even though we can imagine it. Halfway down one line does not correspond to halfway down a line of different length. Halfway to the kitchen does not correspond to halfway to Chicago.

 

[selfAdjoint]

String theory doesn't say that, and it uses the properties of the real number constantly.

What is the Zenon effect?

You keep saying your beliefs are logical, but they're not, they are just prejudices. I've given you two examples, one geometric and one arithmetic and you don't deal with them, you just keep saying it's not logically possible which it is. Logic is on my side not yours, and I can show you my demonstrations, where are yours?

 

[John]

1/2 X 1 does not equal 1/2 X 1.1. So 1/2 on two lines of different length are not the same thing.

And the Zeno Paradox is about a turtle racing Achilles. If Achilles is in front, and they both progress half way to the finish line in each segment of their race, then Achilles never beats the turtle to the line. If Achilles starts out in the rear, then Achilles is moving twice as fast and he still never beats the turtle.

The only way to correlate that problem with reality is at some point use absolute numbers instead of fractions. Suppose the smallest segment you can have is ½. When Achilles is 1 unit from the finish line, the turtle is 2. When Achilles is ½, the turtle is 1. In the next segment Achilles is at 0, because there are no smaller segments than ½. Achilles wins, which makes sense. We must acknowledge a smallest segment possible for math to make sense. That is what string theory does.

String theory says a point is really a small line. Math says a point is non-dimensional, so how do you arrive at a point, mathematically?

A point is part of a line. If you reduce the line to a very small fraction, you begin to arrive at a non-dimensional point. But at 1 millionth of the line you still have a string. At ten millionth you still have a string. At a hundred trillionth of the line, you still have a string. The fact is you never arrive at a non-dimensional point. You can define a location as a non-dimensional point, but you can’t mathematically reduce something to infinitesimally small. A point will always be a string, except when defined as a location. But a location isn’t in a relationship with any number, it’s just a location.

So if you say 1 plus 2, you are talking about a string from 0 to 1 and a string from 0 to 2. Add them and you have a string from 0 to 3. The result, 3, is not a non-dimensional point defined by the location at 3 on the line. It is a quantity from 0 to 3. So you can’t do math with locations or points. You can only do math with strings or values. Therefore, to define a point mathematically you have to mathematically reduce its value to infinitesimally small. You can never do that. No matter how small it is, you can always make it smaller, so it always remains a string.

Realizing there are no non-dimensional points in math, when you go to construct a space out of strings you get the weird fact that you can only travel back and forth in six directions (when you arrange the strings in their most formal arrangement where all the strings are the same length). With strings of different lengths, in less formal arrangements you get fewer directions: 5, 4, or 3 directions. If the strings can alter their length randomly, you still only get 16 limited directions that you can travel back and forth in this space made of strings, and those are 16 dimensions. But it's easiest to have 6 extra dimensions when you construct a space out of equal length strings. And that is exactly how many extra dimensions string theory predicts. But Hawkins said that advancement in physics had currently come to an end, and his reason was because people couldn't agree with each other or see each other's ideas.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This Zeno thing has been hashed to death on other boards of this forum,. I will just say this, 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... + 1/2{sup]n[[/sup] adds up to 1 if you include all the terms. Convergent sequences have limits, and that disproves the simple minded version of the Zeno paradox. But no doubt you will have some other phony argument about limits.

Your ideas about string theory are another matter. They are just as wrong as your ideas about real numbers. String theory does not say "A point is a string".

 

[John]

I don't agree with the simple minded Zeno thing either. But all my life I have questioned the meaning of numbers.

String theory does say that instead of numerical points we have strings, and that idea answered all my questions. It also lead me to realize how we can have a space with 10 dimensions and wormholes.

 

[John]

Okay, I just realized string theory talks about point particles being strings. It was me who extended that idea to all of space, and there, I found the six extra dimensions of string theory. When you create space out of equal length strings instead of non-dimensional points, you find that you can only travel back and forth in six directions. The number six is extremely important! To go in any direction you have to zigzag through three of the extra dimensions, to arrive at any point.

Many tetrahedrons is what space would look like if it were made from strings. The edges of the tetrahedron, which would be the strings you construct space from, go in six directions.

Smolin's Loop Quantum Gravity suggested that space may be made of little faceted structures, exactly like my tetrahedrons.

Molecules and objects are a collection of point particles. All the point particles would ride along the strings of space as the object moves freely through space, or maybe the molecule is precisely projected through space (this idea can be used to explain the "how" behind a lot of the conclusions in Relativity). The point particles of a molecule guide and govern the motion of all objects though space, but the point particles themselves can only go in six directions as they ride along the strings.

When I head that Voyager slowed down for no reason, it precisely fit one of the conclusions I had drawn. Space itself would be more densely packed far away from any massive objects, and an object would slow down.

 

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

Originally posted by John

When I read that Voyager slowed down for no reason, it precisely fit one of the conclusions I had drawn. Space itself would be more densely packed far away from any massive objects, and an object would slow down.

Did it? I never knew that. So, your estimation of this finding is that space must be more densely packed (with?) the farther away from massive objects. Is there an upper and lower limit to the label 'massive'? Do you summize that the relationship between the amount space is packed is directly proportional to distance from these massive objects? Does that correlate to gravity? Does this explain all the missing matter in the universe? Couldn't it just be that Voyager drifted through an undetected 'cloud' of dark matter which caused friction and drag on the spacecraft ?

Your thinking regarding these non-dimensional points being strings that 'suck' matter (and intertransferable energy) along is intriguing. It reminds me of some of the current speculative fictions available on the bookshelf.

As for this debate between corresponding points on differing lengths, my logical mind agrees with selfAdjoint, whereas my creative mind likes your reasoning (however wrong, misguided or anti-establishment). Like I've said before, perhaps (in a very circumventive way) you're on to something. Who knows?

I think the trouble with tertrahedrons (or any figure for that matter) is that they are three-dimensional constructs. Thinking multi-dimensionally, the actual composition of the ultra-microscopic space fabric will be something utterly different. The tertrahedron is a shape recognizeable to both our three-dimensional mind and eyes - and so it fits in nicely with your theories. Application, however, interdimensionally would result in something quite removed from this familiar shape. I think the key to working it all out is to discard our three-dimesionally-crippled mind-sets and try to think multi-interdimensionally. Flatlanders trying to envisage our 3D world would draw flat projections of shapes they recognize in order to imagine them applied to the invisible third dimension. You have to do the same with your tetrahedrons - try to envisage them on another plane entirely. Will the 3D shape hold up to the test? The flat image the Flatlanders drew didn't!

I see where you're coming from with your lengths and points issue. For your argument to hold water, you must accept that a string must be of a finite length in order to use it as a measuring stick with which to size out the universe.

For collections of molecules to all move along from point to point in the correct direction (as my fingers now move across this keypad, with every atom choreographed precisely) all the points my atoms interact with must all allow my atoms to follow the same path - or else whenever I tried to move I'd disintegrate! This implies that my atoms actually 'control' the direction of flow. This implies that (unawares to me) I have complete control over the fabric of space in which I exist! The macro masters the micro!

 

[John]

You said, “Perhaps (in a very circumventive way) you're on to something.”

I say, Yes! and all I need is help from experts, rather than arguments against the details.

You said, For collections of molecules to all move along from point to point in the correct direction (as my fingers now move across this keypad, with every atom choreographed precisely) all the points my atoms interact with must all allow my atoms to follow the same path - or else whenever I tried to move I'd disintegrate! This implies that my atoms actually 'control' the direction of flow. This implies that (unawares to me) I have complete control over the fabric of space in which I exist! The macro masters the micro!

When I came up with that picture in about 1984, I knew it couldn't be exactly right for the same reason you say, "How do the molecules choreograph themselves?" Although I knew the basic idea was right.

You asked, What is space made of? What gets denser? Since we haven't gotten past the idea of physical strings of matter that are like tight rubber bands or violin strings, I'll call them strings, and say that space forms like a 3-dimensional elastic macramé stretching outward. If the strings are shorter, the space is denser and objects move slower.

Another point you made was, tetrahedrons can't be right because they are too simple. Agreed. In one of my posts I say how the strings are constantly changing in length. The six dimensions of tetrahedron space is able to change, which produces a space with a total of 16 string dimensions. That’s adequately complex, so we aren't stuck in a world of tetrahedrons.

How do objects and molecules stay together and choreograph themselves through a space made of matter? Imagine cutting a flat piece of string fabric out of space. It takes two flat pieces of leather to make a baseball. But the shape of the two pieces of the baseball are precise and intricately joined, which is hard to come up with in nature. The least number of simple pieces you can use make a hollow sphere are three. And we know three quarks make a proton.

Imagine three pieces of flat space fabric, quarks. When you take a section of triangular strings out of expanding space, it immediately becomes a denser chip, a flat chip. Take three of those flat chips and put them together; it’s a proton, a dense particle of contracted strings, but it’s hollow. The strings, in triangles, are all over the surface. Imagine electrons (which aren’t really electrons but vibrating strings) traveling along the strings over the surface. The strings are vibrating mass, and the moving mass causes the proton to inflate like a balloon. It's a brane. You could have several protons forming one brane. All of their quarks arrange themselves like panels on a soccer ball, so a few protons form one single bane. They also form in layers or shells, which we call energy shells of the molecule. When the electron is on the brane, it vibrates all the strings of the brane and the electron loses its identity, thus you can’t know where it is, but you can pick one point and recapture all the energy of the electron and send it out along the strings of space.

So molecules are neatly organized membranes, separate from the dimensions of space. That’s how they stay together. How do they move through space?

Remember, we are moving though a matter field, not through empty space.

If molecules are made out of the same fabric as space, then molecules would suck up the space around them in order to form. Like building a sand castle. You have to dig a depression around the castle to get enough sand to build the castle. If you just sweep it all in and build the castle, and if the sand was perfectly flat, then water would run downhill into the castle. If a molecule sucks up space, that makes the space immediately around the molecule less dense, and things would tend to fall into it. That’s what I think is the operating principle behind gravity.

But it’s more complex. Quarks were cut neatly from space at an early stage in the expansion of the space we are in. The quarks organized into hollow protons. The surface of the hollow protons became excited and the vibrating strings inflated the proton. But they are a brane, totally separate from the dimensions of space. What connects the protons to space? The only candidate is neutrons. A wave in the ocean is a mound of water preceded and followed by a trough. A neutron is like a wave in space. It moves like a wave. The strings of the neutron don’t move, but like molecules of water, the wave moves and the individual molecules of water stay put. A neutron moves like a wave. As it approaches a string that is in space, the string expands becoming part of a trough. Then the string gets compressed as it becomes part of the neutron, and then the neutron passes and the string expands to form another trough or gravity well, and then returns slowly to normal.

The strings in the proton are more densely packed than the strings in space. The strings of the neutron are connected to space but they match the density of the proton just under the surface of the proton. So electrons, which are trapped on the surface of the brane can go down into the neutron and then up into space. Since the strings of space around the neutron and the strings of the proton are approximately the same length, electrons can pass from the skin of the proton into the neutron, and then to the strings of space; and the vibrating strings in the protons can throw off many photons using the same process. The proton is not connected to space, but the neutron is.

I’ve tried to give a sketchy picture, but there’s an experiment here. I'm saying only neutrons create the conditions for gravity. The idea is that protons are hollow branes disconnected from space, and neutrons interact with space and generate gravity. Therefore, according to my idea, a hydrogen cloud in a nebula would not generate gravity. Nebulas with their random shapes don’t appear to have gravity in them. If we ask the question, “How much gravity do giant hydrogen clouds have?” And if the answer is, “Less than their mass would suggest.” We have the seed of a major idea.

 

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

Interesting concepts.

Are they yours alone, or gleaned from the minds of others?

There's something about your assesment of the generator of gravity that doesn't really sit well with me. Your description of matter 'falling' toward a denser mass describes the general view of gravity - but what causes the less densely-packed matter to 'fall' toward the denser?

There's a natural trick in biology called osmosis. An example of which is when a cell 'sucks' oxygen out of the passing blood supply. It does this because of the difference in the pressure gradient between the blood flow and the cell internal environment. There is less pressure inside the cell. Nature cleaves to balance. And so the pressures are equalled out, and oxygen 'falls' through the cell wall. Could your assesment of gravity work along similar lines?

Is the universe forever trying to maintain balance? Do the more densely-packed regions of space have a 'lower pressure gradient on the quantum fabric' than the sparser, higher-pressured regions?

This would explain (in overly simplistic terms) how gravity operates on a large scale.

In an ideal universe all the matter and energy would be equally spread out. Uniformity rules! Ours is unfortunately rather 'lumpy' and quite thinly spread - and so everything is forever trying to even the score. All the matter in the universe is pulling all the other matter in the universe, trying to make everything uniform. The denser aglomerations pull harder, attracting even more matter. Unfortunately, our imperfect universe will never achieve complete uniformity - because it looks like there isn't enough matter to stop it expanding!

So perhaps your idea of neutrons being the principle catalyst in the production of gravity could be put to the test. Hydrogen is the most abundant atom in our universe. Any physicist would (I think) be hard-pressed into believing that they play no part in the generation of gravity. In fact, there seems to be a direct link between dense conglomerations of hydrogen AND gravity. Take our physical universe as example. Jupiter is 82% hydrogen and has a priddy huge gravity well! So maybe the link with neutrons might be the wrong path.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Your description of matter 'falling' toward a denser mass describes the general view of gravity - but what causes the less densely-packed matter to 'fall' toward the denser?

In Newtonian or linearized Einstein gravity both bodies fall toward their common center of gravity, so it's symmetric in this sense. But of course the center of gravity is nearer the more massive body - perhaps inside it - so that breaks the symmetry.

 

[John]

Sorry! I didn’t see your answer until now. Jupiter is 82% hydrogen. That would certainly disprove the idea that neutrons create the conditions for gravity. So I looked up the stats for Jupiter.

From the stats: [The fact that Jupiter’s radius is 11.2 times larger than Earth’s means that its volume is more than 1,300 times the volume of Earth. The mass of Jupiter, however, is only 318 times the mass of Earth. Jupiter’s density (1.33 g/cm3) is therefore less than one-fourth of Earth’s density (5.52 g/cm3). Jupiter’s low density indicates that the planet is composed primarily of the lightest elements—hydrogen and helium.]

And so, scientists determine the mass of Jupiter from its gravitational pull. They are saying the mass is always going to be equal to the gravitational pull. I would guess that the gravitational pull would be less than its mass if it has a lot of hydrogen.

[The force of gravity at the level of the highest clouds in Jupiter’s atmosphere is about 2.5 times the force of gravity at Earth’s surface.]

To me, that seems like a low figure for its gravitational pull, only 2.5 times that of Earth at its highest clouds? They got those figures from accurately measuring its gravitational pull. They haven’t actually measured its real mass. They aren’t going to say, “The gravitational pull is less than its mass.” But looking at its size, the figures for its mass and the amount of gravity seem low.

[Beneath the supercritical fluid zone, the pressure reaches 3 million Earth atmospheres. At this depth, the atoms collide so frequently and violently that the hydrogen atoms are ionized—that is, the negatively charged electrons are stripped away from the positively charged protons of the hydrogen nuclei. This ionization results in a sea of electrically charged particles that resembles a liquid metal and gives rise to Jupiter’s magnetic field. This liquid metallic hydrogen zone is 30,000 to 40,000 km (19,000 to 25,000 mi) thick—about half the radius of the planet.]

An ionized hydrogen nuclei is very similar to a neutron. It is a hard little ball of matter. So the sea of liquid metal would tend to distort space, like neutrons do. An inflated proton, which looks like a balloon, or a brane has a harder time distorting space. I say hydrogen may not create gravity at all, and doesn’t react to gravity as efficiently as it if had neutrons.

How does gravity work? If an electron is moving in an energy shell, there is a gradient in the energy shell caused by the distortion of space. Like this:

Point...Point...Point...Point

I say the electron always moves from one point to the next in the same amount of time. So if the electron is moving in a flat circle laid on that line, it is moving faster on one side of the circle than the other. The mass of the electron pulls the object to the left. This is what causes the gravity effect. It has no relation to a force, but happens because electrons always move from point to point in the same amount of time. If the points are farther apart, the electron speeds up. If closer together, the electron slows down. If the electron is moving in a field that is distorted, the electron will always be moving faster on one side of its orbit, pulling the object in that direction.

There is enough ambiguity in Jupiter's mass, makeup, and gravitational pull not to disprove my idea about neutrons, yet. What about hydrogen clouds, nebula, that don't seem to collapse or expand?

 

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

Firstly, Happy New Year!

Secondly (and I don't have time to get into any lengthy discussion right now), electrons do not have mass.

Your idea that the electron's mass pulls the atom and creates gravity doesn't tally if you accept that electrons have no mass.

Also, electrons (unless acted upon by external forces or by transition through varying densities of matter) keep their speed constant. In a perfect situation (i.e. where elctron flow isn't impeded by the resistance of the medium through which they are moving) the electron speed is unchanging. My take on your thoughts about them speeding up to bridge bigger gaps and slowing down to cross smaller ones, is that the warping of our 3D space at fundamental levels actually allows the electron to nip across any varying length or 'gap' between points in the same time. The space fabric between points is 'stretched' between points farther apart, but it is the same amount of space fabric. This allows for an apparent speed up of the electron when actually the electron is only crossing the same apparent distance on the space fabric. If you draw two lines the same length on two bands of elastic that are the same length and then stretch only one of them, the line on the stretched elastic becomes longer than the other. However, the amount of material covered by that stretched line (the molecules that make up the elastic) remain the same. To our eyes the lengths or gaps between the points looks longer and so we assume anything moving along it would take longer - or have to speed up to do the trip in the same time. When actually, to any traveling electron, there is no apparent change in length at all.

As for Jupiter ... if you can imagine the density and mass of the planet's liquid metal core, you'd see why Jupiter's gravity is so strong. The thousands of miles of 'gases' forming the Jovian atmosphere are somewhat insignificant in the gravity equation. It's that metallic core that warps space to produce gravity. All the surrounding gases are just accessories in comparison.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The electron's mass has been measured many many times, and is known pretty accurately. In energy units it is 511,000 electron volts/c^2, or as usually stated but the same number .511 MeV, in units with c=1.

See Weisstein