Post by: charlatan on 04/04/2019 19:06:00
If the 'matter' strings of string theory, that model the quantum nature of the vacuum, are valid components, will space then collapse, with increasing density, to a matter singularity?
Such an idea would suggest, in the reverse process, that the spatial universe in which we exist might be an expanded universal singularity, created in a 'big whoosh' and thinned out as a homogeneous, structured mist and in which SMBH's are considered to be 'droplets' of condensed space, returned to their equilibrium density after collapsing from the spatial structure.
Post by: charlatan on 05/04/2019 14:28:22
Let's dial it back a bit and try another approach.
Let's consider the spacetime curvature of the moon at its surface. Now condense its matter down to the size of a tennis ball, say. Can we agree that the spacetime curvature around the tennis ball-sized moon is far more intense (curving) on the much smaller surface of the 'tennis ball' - given its extreme density - than it was on the surface of the moon?, i.e. a 1cm2 area on the 'tennis ball' distorts the spacetime bounding its surface much more than a similar 1cm2 area on the moon.
Now let's go the other way and continually increase the size of the moon. By the same token, as its surface area increases for its fixed matter content, the spacetime curvature per unit area diminishes. Ultimately we must reach a point where the spacetime curvature is reduced to zero at the surface and so no spacetime curvature can be present. Here an equilibrium is attained where space does not recognise the inflated moon as being 'different' to it and so no forces - that represent disequilibrium - are at work. This is not speculative, its axiomatically correct.
So, we propose that both space and the matter systems within it have an NV ratio (where N = no. of matter units and V = volume) and that the equilibrium we discussed is reached when the NV ratios of space and the expanded moon are equal. (NV ratios can be derived from the ideal gas equation by arranging the equation terms N (atoms, or the smallest component, i.e. nucleons, quarks, etc) over V (volume) and setting pressure to 1, so that expansion is unconstrained). We can conclude from this that the equilibrium point is where the matter density of the matter system is equal to the matter density of the space in which it is considered and that differences in their respective NV ratios determine the extent of spacetime curvature - or gravity - about the matter system.
Space is matter expanded and matter is space condensed.
Post by: charlatan on 06/04/2019 11:25:40
Let's try a bit of 'top-down' analysis.
Let us consider, for example, a large interstellar cloud of hydrogen gas with its matter equivalent to 10 times that of our own sun - one big enough to produce a supernova event and so, big enough to produce a black-hole singularity. In the supernova event that produces the singularity a huge amount of solar debris is shed. If we were to sum the debris in terms of its quark content and subtract that from the total quark content of the cloud prior to solar formation, then the singularity must be comprised of the unaccounted matter - which can be verified through its gravitational influence. So, if a singularity is a product of a process that involves a quantised input, i.e. the quarks in matter, then the singularity must be quantised - at least to that degree.
It seems outlandish to me to consider the singularity as anything other than quarks structured in such a way that allows for them to attain a minimum volume - in a matter condensate accompanied with an appropriate release of energy that is consistent with such a change of state. It should be the 'first port of call' in reasoning the structure of a singularity.
So, in this (classical) analysis we can identify a potentially cyclical process.
A singularity consists of (perfectly?) condensed quarks.
Quarks are the fundamental units of matter.
Expanded matter is equivalent to space
Expand the singularity - in a cold dark expansion - and a quark structure will be its fabric.
From that fabric we can get matter (in quark triplets).
No Higgs boson.
No worm-holes.
No spookiness.
Just good old-fashioned classical mechanics.
Post by: guest39538 on 06/04/2019 15:46:53
Imagine a universe in which there is no matter, only space. If we could then shrink the universe to a much smaller size, will space densify and what would its substance be?Yes the visual universe could be a singularity in a much larger space simply described
If the 'matter' strings of string theory, that model the quantum nature of the vacuum, are valid components, will space then collapse, with increasing density, to a matter singularity?
Such an idea would suggest, in the reverse process, that the spatial universe in which we exist might be an expanded universal singularity, created in a 'big whoosh' and thinned out as a homogeneous, structured mist and in which SMBH's are considered to be 'droplets' of condensed space, returned to their equilibrium density after collapsing from the spatial structure.
V1.jpg (9.91 kB . 524x323 - viewed 2668 times)As for your mist ,it's actually an interwoven binary energy field and
→
EΔρ =Δ
Where p is density Post by: Kryptid on 06/04/2019 22:46:08
No Higgs boson.
If your model predicts the absence of the Higgs boson, then your model was falsified when the Higgs boson was detected at the Large Hadron Collider.
Post by: charlatan on 08/04/2019 08:49:55
Quote from: charlatan on 06/04/2019 11:25:40
No Higgs boson.
If your model predicts the absence of the Higgs boson, then your model was falsified when the Higgs boson was detected at the Large Hadron Collider.
The 'spike' that was detected could be anything. There is no identifying feature of a Higgs boson. All they got was a 'What's that spike?....that could be the Higgs!'. Not very conclusive. The Higgs is required in the standard model - they were looking for a spike and they found one. Did they find it again? Remember the meson/muon confusion?
Post by: charlatan on 08/04/2019 13:14:58
As for your mist ,it's actually an interwoven binary energy field
Field is not required in this classical model. All concepts of field can be explained by the distortion of structure according to the differences between the NV ratios of the bodies and the environment in which they are observed - at the cosmological level and at the quantum level.
It seems there is some difficulty talking heuristically about the nature of the cosmos and a tendency to want to 'break out the maths'. We don't need to do that here, the maths is incredibly simple and doesn't need to be approached until the full classical model of all physical phenomena is shown. For example, an intuitive classical representation of the gravitational effect emerges from the simple model already presented.
We maintain that the fabric of space is comprised of structured quarks - resulting from the smoothly expanded singularity. That expansion puts the quarks into a state where they are above their minimum volume. Regarding space, we know it is flexible as it can expand and contract. Regarding matter, we know that matter systems always 'fall' to their lowest possible energy state - this is equivalent to saying they contract to their lowest volume. All quarks in their expanded state are imbued with a force of contraction but none can contract because to do so requires the quarks that are surrounding it to expand, i.e. be given more energy. So, in a volume of open space the quarks are equalised and unable to contract. However, place two objects of mass in that space and the quarks in the space between them can apply a force on both objects - the quark units of space between them are effectively contracting and drawing the masses together. The mechanism is simple and consistent with the model we presented. It means that the function governing the collapse/contraction of the quantum spatial unit is the gravitational function. The spatial unit (quark) has gravity built in. Further, the model suggests that this force (gravity) is the only one at play in the cosmos and all other forces have it in their function.
Post by: Kryptid on 08/04/2019 20:58:22
The 'spike' that was detected could be anything.
No it couldn't. The identity of the detected particle is constrained by the measured properties of the particle.
There is no identifying feature of a Higgs boson.
Yes there are. A spin of 0, a charge of 0 and a parity of +1 are some of them. There are also particular predicted decay channels predicted by the Standard Model for the Higgs that have been validated by experiment. No experimental inconsistencies between the observed particles and Standard Model predictions for the Higgs have yet been observed. Arguably the most important parameter, however, is coupling to mass. It has also been found experimentally that the strength of the interactions of the Higgs with other particles scales proportionally to their mass, which was confirmed to within 15% of the Standard Model's predictions.
All they got was a 'What's that spike?....that could be the Higgs!'. Not very conclusive.
You are massively understating how particle physics works. As I just pointed out, there are many properties that particle accelerators are capable of investigating and all of them point strongly to a Higgs particle.
The Higgs is required in the standard model - they were looking for a spike and they found one.
The search and results were a lot more complicated than that. There wasn't some single measurement that made physicists conclude that they had had certainly found Higgs particles. There have been years of experiments investigating its various properties that have made them increasingly confident of that conclusion.
Did they find it again?
Refining the measured properties of the Higgs would have required that they did detect it multiple times over the years, so obviously they did.
Remember the meson/muon confusion?
The muon was demonstrated to not be a meson through experimentation. The case with the Higgs is just the opposite: further experimentation has only further confirmed that it is indeed the Higgs.
Post by: charlatan on 09/04/2019 16:48:18
I have understated how things work. It's been some time since I researched the Higgs and I should perhaps have chosen my words more carefully. However, the reality of the discovery nonetheless boils down to experimenters and academics saying "Can we now agree that the particle we have observed is the Higgs?....OK, we've found the Higgs". The characteristics you've described are not special at all and the 15% shortfall you mention is kinda big. This is not about confirming reality but adhering to, and upholding a set of beliefs - the standard model.
In the model that I am suggesting, the quarks - the entities that the Higgs boson purports to form (without describing any sort of mechanism to do so) - are present in the (crystalline) structure of space from the get-go. There are also analogues in the model that explain the interactions that produce the W and Z bosons as well as the Higgs. We'll get to those soon enough.
For now, my time is limited on the computer and I don't have the time right now, but my next post will describe, using the components of the model, the step-by-step process of a supernova event.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/04/2019 18:34:55
The characteristics you've described are not special at all
So you don't consider the fact that the particle is observed to couple to mass special? That is the key characteristic of the Higgs and is a unique property of it. The spin of 0 is also important. All other detected fundamental bosons (the photon, gluon, W boson and Z boson) have spins of 1. The hypothetical axion has a spin of 0 as well, but its predicted properties don't match that of the detected particle.
the 15% shortfall you mention is kinda big
The 15% represents an uncertainty level. The proper, predicted mass coupling is within that error range. The graph on this page shows the data of mass coupling: http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2013/02/when-shall-we-call-it-higgs.html
The predicted value of 1 is inside all three of the data curves and is therefore consistent with existing observations.
Post by: charlatan on 10/04/2019 17:10:55
It's not the kind of forum for what I want. Apologies.
However, if you liked what you read (red) and want to explore a fully classical theory from the creation event to the molecular geometries of the DNA nucleotides and their construction in the DNA molecule - using a single consistent classical model - then check my profile and drop me an e-mail and I'll send you the link to my website - don't think I can post it here.
charlatan