Fallacy , Space can be bent , warped or contorted .

Pinball1970 said:
Yes you have posted these again and again. Fractals are NOT required to explain GR. They are not relevant to the bending of space, tensors are.
Click to expand...
Yes, but how are tensors created? They don't appear out of nowhere. If spacetime itself evolves fractally then is it not the created fractality that is a priori responsible for the emergence of tensors in the process.

When we talk about quantum fields in any form, we assume that field consist of a set of fundamental self-similar mathematical values.
To me that suggests types of fractal structures that make up all fields.
Physicists have discovered fractal-like patterns in a quantum material, known as "Hofstadter's butterfly," which has been directly observed experimentally in a real material12345.
Click to expand...

Causal dynamical triangulation (CDT), theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, is an approach to quantum gravity that, like loop quantum gravity, is background independent.
This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space) but, rather, attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.
Click to expand...
There is evidence [1] that, at large scales, CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

Causal dynamical triangulation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Abstract
It is expected that the full unification is achievable within a quantum field theory “beyond the SM” (StandardModel). An alternative approach is the Kaluza-Klein (KK) extension of the General Relativity (GR) with extra dimensions.
Click to expand...
However, there is a third possibility that no unification is achievable due to the specific fractal structure of the spacetimeand the unique position of the observer situated inside the ordinary (gravitational) subspace and outside the compactextra dimensions, the geometry of which governs particle interactions. The Fractal spacetime concept (FSC) is proposedin order to support the General principle of interaction (GPI), which postulates that all the nature’s forces with noexceptions are governed by the spacetime geometry
Click to expand...
The FSC postulates that the spacetime includes three separatesubspaces (in addition to the time dimension): the three-dimensional ordinary subspace, the atomic-sized fifthdimension sufficient to explain the electromagnetism, and the set of three nuclear-sized dimensions sufficient to explainthe nuclear forces.
Click to expand...
The spacetime has a simple fractal structure: each of the three subspaces presumably has a sphericalshape with the sizes decreased tremendously from one subspace to another. The size differences are responsible for the separation of the subspaces and gradually increased action powers of the three fundamental fields: gravitational,electroweak and strong fields.
Click to expand...
more... https://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0181v1.pdf


Exploring Fractal Quantum Field Theory in Higher-Order Dimensions Using the McGinty Equation, 2024
www.unisciencepub.com Chris McGinty(2024).

Note that I post these "thought-processes" as probative for further pertinent information on new and potentially important science.
I only try to cite what I believe are logical scientific endeavors
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Yes, but how are tensors created?
Click to expand...
By humans.

Write4U said:
They don't appear out of nowhere
Click to expand...
Correct they were created and developed in the 19th century by Mathematicians.

Einstein used those tools to describe his General Theory of relativity which describes how mass and energy can bend, distort space time.
Fractals are not needed.
Firing a canon ball and analysing distance and time you can use Newton, you don't need Einstein.
Analysis of the perihelion of Mercury requires GR, you do not need supersymmetry or QLG.
Titration can be used to calculate the concentration of a liquid, you do not need quantum mechanics. It is not needed it is not relevant, EVEN if the molecules in the reaction behaviour is at the quantum level, it is not required or relevant to do the calculations or explain the results.
 
Pinball1970 said:
By humans.
Click to expand...
Back to the map again?
Pinball1970 said:
Correct they were created and developed in the 19th century by Mathematicians.
Click to expand...
The descriptive symbolic language was developedby mathematicians. But the language describes a real aspect of spacetime.
the word 'duck"also does not fly around in space. But ducks are real reardless of any symbolic description in any language.
Pinball1970 said:
Einstein used those tools to describe his General Theory of relativity which describes how mass and energy can bend, distort space time.
Fractals are not needed.
Click to expand...
But all theories, hypotheses, propositions are human codified sybolic inventions, maps.
But the logic contained in the term tensor describes the cause for spacetime curvature.
Spacetime curvature is caused by tensors in spacetime12345. These curvature tensors describe how mass and energy influence the curvature of the universe1235. The more massive an object is, the greater the curvature it creates in spacetime2.
Click to expand...
Tensors are used to describe spacetime curvature Tensors, scalars and vectors refer to more fundamental higher dimensions, allowing mathematicians to describe how space-time bends and twists due to the presence of mass and energy
Curvature tensors encapsulate the geometric properties of space-time and describe how matter and energy influence the curvature of the universe
Click to expand...
Why is this less informative than GR, so that it can be ignored as not being relevant?
Fiiring a canon ball and analysing distance and time you can use Newton, you don't need Einstein. Analysis of the perihelion of Mercury requires GR, you do not need supersymmetry or QLG.
Click to expand...
I understand that but that does not explain the curvature of spacetime itself, only its effect, does it? We are doing calculating, doing the maths.
Titration can be used to calculate the concentration of a liquid, you do not need quantum mechanics. It is not needed it is not relevant, EVEN if the molecules in the reaction behaviour is at the quantum level, it is not required or relevant to do the calculations or explain the results.
Click to expand...
But again, we are not doing any calculating, but unpacking the causes for universal phenomena. Not the how, but the why?
 
Excellent explanation.

The how speaks about results which are measurable, the why speaks about causality which may be outside the scope of current knowledge.
But Feinman also granted the fact that it's the mystery of causality that is the intriguing part. And that is where my curiosity lies.

Yet, it seems that as our measuring devices become more sophisticated, our knowledge of causality keeps growing.

Emergence and Causality in Complex Systems: A Survey of Causal Emergence and Related Quantitative Studies

Abstract
Emergence and causality are two fundamental concepts for understanding complex systems. They are interconnected. On one hand, emergence refers to the phenomenon where macroscopic properties cannot be solely attributed to the cause of individual properties. On the other hand, causality can exhibit emergence, meaning that new causal laws may arise as we increase the level of abstraction. Causal emergence (CE) theory aims to bridge these two concepts and even employs measures of causality to quantify emergence.
Click to expand...
Causality, or causation, refers to the connection between a cause and its resulting effect [14,15,16]. It describes the phenomenon in which an event, known as the cause, leads to another event, known as the effect. Traditional studies of causality have typically focused on the causal relationship between two or a few variables. However, the unique characteristics of causality in complex systems present new challenges to classical causal science due to the vast number of variables involved and the presence of emergent phenomena. In complex systems, it is possible for one cause to have multiple effects, and conversely, one effect may be influenced by a multitude of causes. Furthermore, in complex systems, causality often exhibits cross-level properties, which are closely associated with emergence.
Click to expand...
more .... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10887681/
 
Pinball1970 said:
Einstein did and it has been used ever since, GR has very powerful predictive power.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that. As I stipulated, I have no problem with GR. I believe that my example of man in the elevator indicates that I have a rudimentaryl understanding of the basic premise of relativity contained in GR, but AFAIK, it does not address the extant or emergent causality of why it must be so.

My take on the OP is not how spacetime bends, according to Einstein, but why it bends at some deeper, more abstract level.
If I am in error about that, I apologize, but that is where my mind takes me.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
My take on the OP is not how spacetime bends, according to Einstein, but why it bends at some deeper, more abstract level.
Click to expand...
An electron is fundamental particle yet a proton is composite, why?
Why does an electron have such a small mass compared to the proton? About 1/1840, why so tiny?
Some of these why questions do not advance what you know.

General relativity can be derived in part starting from some basic assumptions, assumptions that are not too crazy. What is crazy is the mathematics getting there.
It took Einstein about 9 years and some of the maths was fairly recent (for maths) so he would not necessarily have encountered all of it. He had to learn it and it is hard!
THAT is the interesting parts about space time and what happens to it.
Einstein's powerful intellect worked it out. Just phenomenal.
 
Pinball1970 said:
An electron is fundamental particle yet a proton is composite, why?
Why does an electron have such a small mass compared to the proton? About 1/1840, why so tiny?
Some of these why questions do not advance what you know.

General relativity can be derived in part starting from some basic assumptions, assumptions that are not too crazy. What is crazy is the mathematics getting there.
It took Einstein about 9 years and some of the maths was fairly recent (for maths) so he would not necessarily have encountered all of it. He had to learn it and it is hard!
THAT is the interesting parts about space time and what happens to it.
Einstein's powerful intellect worked it out. Just phenomenal.
Click to expand...
Электрон - не фундаментальная частица. Все массивные частицы являются составными.
 
Pinball1970 said:
I'm trying to pull it back
Click to expand...
Well done.

Regarding your question about the mass of the electron vs. the baryons, one thing that strikes me as odd is why the fundamental unit of electric charge on the quarks that are thought to compose hadrons seems to be 1/3 that of the electron. Will we one day find a lepton with a charge of 1/3? One has the feeling there is more to know.
 
exchemist said:
Well done.

Regarding your question about the mass of the electron vs. the baryons, one thing that strikes me as odd is why the fundamental unit of electric charge on the quarks that are thought to compose hadrons seems to be 1/3 that of the electron. Will we one day find a lepton with a charge of 1/3? One has the feeling there is more to know.
Click to expand...
I don't know, if an electron is composite like a proton why are the energies so much higher required to show this?
Why is mass and charge not related more evenly? That would make more sense.

Some of those "why" questions could probably answered via the SM of particle physics.
I would have to know enough about the SM to be able to understand the answer tho.
That was my point to write4u
 
Pinball1970 said:
I don't know, if an electron is composite like a proton why are the energies so much higher required to show this?
Why is mass and charge not related more evenly? That would make more sense.

Some of those "why" questions could probably answered via the SM of particle physics.
I would have to know enough about the SM to be able to understand the answer tho.
That was my point to write4u
Click to expand...
Sure, it's one of the things that "just is" at the moment. But I've always felt the lack of symmetry to be a bit suspicious. Of course there is no reason why things have to be symmetrical in this way. It would just be more "elegant" if we had units of charge that were the same across all particles. The search for elegance in nature has sometimes proved to be a spur to new insights. Dirac's equation and the prediction of antiparticles springs to mind.
 
Pinball1970 said:
He thought that was a mathematical quirk!
Click to expand...
Если я возьму нитку, и начну её с одного конца сматывать в клубок, а с другого разматывать, то у меня получится с одной стороны отрицательный заряд(электрон), с другой стороны положительный заряд(позитрон), а посередине между ними отсутствие заряда(фотон или глюон, в зависимости от ситуации). Это аналогия.
 
Pinball1970 said:
He thought that was a mathematical quirk!
Click to expand...
As I understand it he was struggling to give meaning to Einstein's energy formula E =√((mc²)² + p²c²) when p in QM has to be an operator. He found he could do it if he replaced single variable by matrices, implying there was a family of 4 entities rather than just the one treated by Schrödinger's original equation. Spin apparently fell out of this, as it fitted with Pauli's attempts to accommodate spin which implied pairs of entities instead of one, but the meaning, if any, of the other 2 remained to be established. Until it was worked out that they would, if real, be antiparticle counterparts of the entity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top