In my model, both are happening at the same time. The particles are uncurling and they stay together under the influence of gravity. The dot in the analogy demonstrates that the particles are constantly moving relative to the space-time fabric. The effect would be the same as if in the centre of mass a source is producing space equal to the space produced by the uncurling of the particles. The dot would then move into the particle and come out the other side, adding to the inter-matter space. The ball of matter does not expand, because the uncurling is happening too slowly for the inertia of the particles (due to the elastic rebound pressure of space-time) to cause the ball to expand. When the observed expansion is reversed, it puts the time of spontanious creation around 13 billion years, right? Or that is only for the observable universe. If particles are getting smaller as a result of the uncurling, that would add to the rate of expansion observed and would account for the acceleration that Reiku mensioned. So in actual fact, the universe could be at least a bit older than thought and it might not be accelerating (maybe even slowing down or contracting, depending on the rate of shrinkage), as the observed acceleration would be an optical illusion. So after an initial creation event, a big crunch could have preceded the apparent big bang scenario. There the combined interference could have created an incredibly massive (and normal matter) particle wave-bundle, getting rid of any residual anti-particles and quickly decaying into fundamental particles. Then these fundamental particles could freely undergo high energy interference to create more massive particles for formation of the lighter elements. How is that?
Care to explain? You mean it is neaded for my scenario to be possible or needed to explain current understanding of quantum mechanics? Either way, it is good news for me.....
Quantum Mechanics, as you will undoubtedly know, is used to interpret the function of matter at the fundamental level. We see this as all arising from the vacuum, like the spontaneous bubbling of electrons and antielectrons out of the Dirac Sea whenever there is enough energy present. Remember, the Dirac Sea is packed full with negative particles. Matter must come out of the vacuum, and create two distinct forms of longer-lived spacetime distortional fluctuations; a particle and its antipartner. This was called by physicist J. A Wheeler as ''quantum foam.'' These fluctuations arise out of a spatial coordinate - this size is 1.616 x 30^-33, which is the smallest known 'box' of space. The fluctuations also arise out of the smallest time possible, called the ‘Planck Time,' which is 5.391 x 10^-44 seconds. It is here, in this infinitesimal unit of space that releases an enormous amount of virtual energy in the quickest time possible! On this small level, space and time literally forces these spontaneous rapid releases of quantum bubbles of energy/gas that breaks into a particle and its antiparticle. Thus, Quantum Theory might itself be indicating an equivalence with 'zero-point energy field,' that may be the shadow of a ''particulate Aether''. There are simply some aspects about the Aether field that we simply ‘just need’. There are many more theories about the Aether though which are very controversial such as The Einstein-Aether Theories… And all this originally stemmed from physicist Thomas Young’s experiment of a photons quantum wave. I don't think the Aether field will be solved any time soon – however, the Aether field is now gaining more and more interest, as I have been informed by Dr. Fred Alan Wolf… The reason why is because some scientists believe that dark energy might be linked to the Aether… And because we know so very little about dark energy, this has got the scientists very excited.
Well, I may be missing something, but I don't see how this is consistent. Sorry if I'm mostly confused by your analogies. And you still haven't really addressed the issue that there is an asymmetry between matter and anti-matter in the universe.
That’s probably my fault. I think you might be misunderstanding how particles are represented in this model. They are complex waves in space-time. They are made of nothing but space-time. They are like the waves produced by the up and down movement in the steel cable in the OP. Ok, imagine you put your finger on the table and let a piece of string lie over it. The curve it makes over your finger represents the particle. Now if you take the piece of string at one end and pulled, it would move, but the curve would stay in the same place. So in practice, the particle stays in the same place (under gravity), while space produced by the surrounding particles moves through each successive particle into surrounding space. I have been trying to. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The way I think about it, is that particles and anti-particles are the inverse waves of each other. So when they come into contact, they undergo destructive interference with their energy dissipating in the form of sound-like ripples (photons). In my 3D model, it might be possible for two different particles with similar wave forms to undergo interference with a product or products that differ from the parent particles. These products might then not be able to undergo easy interference with their parent particle’s anti-particles. So then you are left with a collection of particles that does not easily undergo interference with each other, with maybe some residual anti-particles left. I was thinking then that if after the spontaneous creation event and after many instances of interspecies interference, if the resultant particles where still confined to a relatively small area, they might then start to coalesce. This would form a huge ball of particles that would be able to undergo interference with each other under the force of gravity gets great enough to contract past the neutron level, possibly forming one huge particle (which may be what a singularity is). It might even be that islands of particles would form that would force the rest of the anti-particles to undergo interference with the normal particle majority. In either case, the remaining asymmetry would be gone. I am sure that today under sufficiently energetic collisions, two different types of particles would still annihilate each other, while others would interact and then decay into two (or more) different particles? Those are exactly the types of particles that would be left today with this model. The main point is that with particles being 3D complex wave-bundles, it would be a matter (sorry Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) of course that many different configurations would be possible. Also, that these different configurations would be able to undergo interference with each other with varying ease. The products of interference might not be able to undergo interference with the anti-particles of their parents, as a new wave form of a third configuration could result. It is my understanding that anti-particles and companion particles are nothing more than mirror images of each other. The only asymmetry we see is between mirror images of particles with the same mass. In my model it is worth noting that the singularity before the big bang could have existed in infinite space and need not be the source of space-time we see today. It is my understanding that in the current accepted theory, the singularity would have had to have contained all of space-time before inflation in order to account for the isotropic expansion we observe. Since in my model the particles themselves are the source of the expansion, space-time could be infinite in time and space. My model could even account for the unexplained Doppler shift of the transmissions from space probes. It would happen as a result of the combined space-time created mostly by uncurling particles in our sun moving away from its source while the signal travels in more or less the opposite direction.
The asymmetry might not be as difficult to explain... Look at that massive hole discovered? The only logic i can imagine was that something annihilated that specific region... hence matter-antimatter collisions? Also, look at that massive area of missing antimatter just found and presented in a recent thread in the astrology... ... I think the universe is older than what we realize. There will be more massive clumps of antimatter and we will also find more holes.
I am wondering how it might be possible to explain the michelson-morley experiment using this model. One feature of the model is the fact that matter waves move through space and the space released from uncurling particles is moving in all sorts of directions relative to conglomerations of matter. The earth moves around the sun, the sun around the galactic centre, the galaxy around the centre of gravity of the cluster, the cluster around the centre of gravity of the supercluster. So how could it be possible to measure the effect this has on the experiment? One has to concider frame dragging as well, since it is no longer confined to open space. In the experiment light behaves as if no aether wind exists. So the only candidate for an explanation would frame dragging. I understand that experiments to test frame dragging by the earth are being devised or already underway. I wonder if it may be possible to test the prediction of my model that frame dragging would also occur deep underground?
Mmmmm... the problem is that we are inviting an Aether wind that has never been detected. I am not sure what to say. Usually we need an experimental evidence to suggest such a theory. Without it, you enter territories such as string theory.
Yes, the michelson-morley experiment did not detect an aether. I am suggesting that frame dragging would affect the experiment and maybe cause the result. That the experiment would have been isolated and given the same result that a stationary earth relative to the space fabric would have given, with frame dragging as the cause. For this model to work, it has to stand up to results already attained from experiments conducted for other reasons. So I am first looking into the macro world and observed and predicted phenomina. If I am able to reconcile my model with that, then I can start looking at quantum mechanics and observed and predicted phenomina there. The latter step would require some mathematics and some modeling sofware I think.
Yes and in doing so isloates the frame of reference. That would explain why no aether wind was detected.
YES... I now see what you are meaning... You see, as i am sure you know, matter/energy drags the spacetime around with it, and accordingly, it should drag the Aether Field with also. This is highly controversial though. Why such detections are erroneous is because we should detect at least an errtor of 1% due to such experiments. If nothing is found, it should stand to reason that nothing is evident.
Yes, Einstein predicts frame dragging, manifesting with acceleration and rotation of masses, with the earth doing both as it orbits the sun. The thing is I think he only takes space outside of the mass into consideration. So the predicted amount is extremely small outside of the mass. So I am interested to know how much it would affect space-time within the body of mass. I am thinking that space-time within the body of mass would be completely isolated. My model suggests that space-time itself exhibits the observed phenomena, so actually no aether is needed.
Well, the only prob. is, is that we have no Einstein to compilate this against. His predictions are very much for the light-hearted. If we assume there is some renormalization, then i would certainly agree that the Aether could be hidden behind some dragging-effect. But this is highly presumable, and requires heavy math to concede it.
I won't argue with that! This whole thing is one huge presumption on my part. I read that the gravity probe is not configurable to 1% accuracy (best hope +- 14%) due to some unforeseen inference. They will have to send one or more new ones up that can be calibrated on the fly. I guess I'll have to wait till then. I wonder if simulators are available that would run on my pc? I’d like to set up a cloud of gas or a simple solar system using this particle-wave premise and play around with some settings. I’ll have to do some studying first though. Another thing I was wondering about, is how would galaxies be affected by this model. I mean, if it might be possible to find an explanation for the rotational anomalies without the need for dark matter. And also how we could model a singularity. It might be interesting to think that a singularity might be one ultra massive particle, that under the huge influence of gravity the particle-waves could interfere into a single particle….
Some further Q&A on Scienceforums.net: It would only be the centre of the collection of matter that comprises our universe, as in this model space-time is infinite. So even though a centre of our matter-universe exists, we would not be able to detect it. In this model, space is still expanding (as a result of the particles uncurling) in a fairly uniform manner, so that we would see exactly what we see today from our perspective, i.e. we would still see a uniform expansion from any arbitrary point chosen. Yeh, I guess I did contradict myself there. In this model they are the basic ripples illustrated by the sound wave in the steel cable analogy. This idea sprang into existence in my mind initially only with the premise that matter might be explained as matter-manifolds. When I started typing it down, many of the pieces fell into place consciously that I presumably have been considering subconsciously. So I included photons in the initial definition. I will fix that. As to permittivity and permeability, yes that is more or less what I meant: Most of the features one would ascribe to an infinite volume of very soft elastic rubber. As to half-life of particles, it is my understanding that individual particles have half-lives themselves, where roughly half of them would annihilate into photons after a certain period. This period is obviously a VERY long time, with protons’ half-live being calculated to well over the suspected age of the universe (in the order of 10^35 years). So it is distinct from radioactive decay, where an atomic nucleus decays into another elemental nucleus by the emission of alpha, beta or gamma radiation. Well, imagine crumpling a sheet of cellophane and releasing it. The properties of the space-time fabric (in this model) is such that it does uncurl, slowly, having isotropic expansion as a result. True. The amplitude in my analogy represents the amount of tension the particle exerts on space-time (gravity as a result of mass). So the higher the enclosed area of the particle, the higher its mass, the more resistance to movement occurs (inertia). So a lighter particle would be able to accelerate faster with the same amount of force applied to it. As the particle moves faster and faster, the elastic rebound pressure of the space-time fabric gets more pronounced as the movement tries to increasingly deform the fabric at a faster rate, until a huge amount of resultant force is needed to gain a small amount of velocity. No matter (excuse the pun) how much resultant force is applied, it would still not be able to travel as fast as a non-folded sound wave (photon) would be able to travel. Such a traveling particle would get flattened in a face-on direction as a result of this resistance to deformity of space-time (length contraction). Also, the particle wave-bundle would swell as it moves faster (mass gain). I can understand that. This idea mostly exists as a mind experiment, so the terms I use is an effort to describe the mental movie of sorts. I am happy to clarify any points that are unclear. I know it is radical, whimsical and mostly devoid of proper scientific terms. In my mind, though, I can’t find any problems with it thus far. If it turns out to be incorrect because of some unassailable hurdle, it would at least have been a rewarding mind exercise. Thanks again for your attention!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Cool. Any problems, suggestions? I am having some trouble finding information on elementary particle annihilation. It is my understanding that they do have half-lives. Is this correct? I could only find information on proton half-life.
