0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Your ether looks like space to me.

The contraction of length in relativity, is a contraction of space.

Higher the gravitational field is, higher the density of space is.

Either the BigBang came from a singularity or a light ring black hole, space expanded from that...

Your theory looks much like mine but you add a subset (or 2?) of 3 dimensions of foamy space to explain dark energy as a negative pressure.

But, wouldn't this be a simpler model if we just see it as strong gravitational lightwaves beyond our observed universe?

Sometimes, i must admit, i believe that we are in a holographic world. Just to think, everything can be made of light, the basic models are 2 dimensional and the third dimension may appear from the Heisenberg Principle...

The relativity equations explain it well to a mathematician, but most of us have an instinctive need for picture that matches our experiences. The only picture I can offer is the one that comes from my own model, as follows:The known particles, like electrons, protons, etc., are composed of more fundamental particles. The most fundamental particles consist of pairs (or perhaps groups) of photons orbiting one another. Since they are photons, they can only move at the speed of light, even when they are locked in orbit around one another. The center of the particle is the center of the orbit. When the particle moves relative to any reference frame, the path of the orbit in that frame is necessarily longer than the path of the center. For an analogy, consider a bola [thanks, imatfaal, for the correction] (two or more heavy balls tied to the ends of ropes). When you throw a bolero, the balls orbit around the center of the ropes. If you trace the paths of the balls and the center, you will see that the balls travel farther than the center, but in the same amount of time. Obviously, the center of the bola can't move faster than the balls spinning around it. []The rest mass of the particle is the combined mass of its constituent orbiting photons. I can hear you general relativity people shouting and laughing, "Photons have no mass! Ha, ha!" [] I'm going to have take a slight detour to satisfy the general relativists before I can resume answering the question. I'm not saying GR is wrong; it just uses the same words we learned in high school, but with different meanings. It may be true that, in GR, a photon has no mass; that's because "mass" doesn't mean the same thing in Minkowski space-time as it does in Euclidean space. In Euclidean space, gravity bends the path of light; in Minkowski space-time, the path of light is the definition of a straight line. Near a white dwarf or black hole, the Euclidean space is still there, but things that are spherical in Minkowski space-time are distorted in the Euclidean space. When you see a diagram of a black hole with curvy lines to represent light beams, your actually looking at the black hole in Euclidean space; there is no way to illustrate it in Minkowski space-time unless your visual cortex is wired like a modern computer. Now, as I was saying: A photon has mass in Euclidean space. In a gravitational field, the force of gravity changes the momentum of the photon. At relativistic speeds, force is not equal to mass times acceleration; instead, force is the rate of change of momentum. The equation, f = dp/dt, works for particles with rest mass as well as for photons, regardless of the velocity. Near the speed of light, dp = mdv + vdm. Mdv = ma, and since dm is not zero at high velocities, f ≠ ma. To satisfy conservation of momentum and Newton's third law, the force of gravity pulling a photon toward a star must be matched by an equal and opposite force pulling the star toward the photon. So the photon has gravitational mass as well as inertial mass in Euclidean space. Let's get back to the question, shall we. The rest mass of the particle is the combined mass of its constituent orbiting photons. To accelerate the particle, you must transform its waveform into a different reference frame. Applying the formulas of special relativity to small increments of velocity, you find that the energy of the orbiting photons is greater in a reference frame that is moving relative to the center of the particle. The greater the velocity difference between particles own reference frame and the moving reference frame, the greater the energy of the orbiting photons. Since acceleration increases the energy of the orbiting photons, it also increases the mass of the particle. The rest mass of the particle remains unchanged because it is the mass measured in reference frame of the particle. Actually, the picture ain't quite that simple, because the orbiting photons are sometimes moving in the direction of relative motion, sometimes opposite the relative motion, and most of the time at an angle to the relative motion. You have to be pretty good mathematician to prove that the sum of masses of the orbiting photons is always equal to the total mass of the particle. (By the way, I'm not a mathematician.) And that brings us to the standard explanation of why it takes infinite energy to accelerate a particle to the speed of light. If the center of the particle is moving at the speed of light in a given reference frame, and the particle still has its original rest mass in its own reference frame, then the equations of special relativity can only be satisfied by assuming that the particle has infinite mass. Anyway, how are the photons supposed to orbit? They must take infinite time in the part of their orbit where they move in the direction of relative motion, and zero time coming around the other side of the particle. []For those of you who are wondering how photons can orbit one another, it’s the Higgs force. I'm working on an explanation of how that works, but it’s not yet posted on my website. Long story short: Dark energy pushes photons less on the side facing one another, but only if they are properly matched for wavelength and aligned for phase, polarity and distance. Then, zero point energy sucks them into a potential well so deep that they become blue shifted and their mass increases by a factor greater than a million to one. Now, kiddies, you must forget everything I've said because you'll get an F if you mention any of this in your school work. It's pure heresy. Bad thoughts! [xx(] Nasty! Get them out of your mind, right now!

I also like the bolas, cool description…

…although giving photons mass, even if in a Euclidean space, was sort of surprising I think you can use the idea without having to give them a mass.

…but the bola has no 'size' and what may 'spin' could be the way 'time' is treated for a photon, or my head of course

Because that's one of the things that always surprised me, that something moving as fast as we can measure, still are able to follow a logic mostly applicable at speeds where there still is the possibility of a 'distance'. I know it's only rest mass that can 'experience' those effects as we don't have a description from the photons angle.

…but we still expect them to have a 'energy', and according to a black hole? 'Energy' has a mass, not moving relativistically any more, but , from our 'frame of reference' actually being at 'rest'. If we accept that there are transformations from matter to radiation to energy, then it's kind of surprising that we have a stage in the middle without 'gravity'. but then again, this is not wholly true, is it Photons may show a 'gravity', only depending on 'direction' relative each other, but, and this one rather surprisingly also depending on your definition of a 'system? That last one is especially mysterious I have to admit. Never the less I'm pretty sure they are without what we call 'mass' although I also see them as containing 'energy'. And they all express themselves under our 'arrow of time', interacting very specifically and logical, allowing us to construct a theory of their 'propagation' although we only can observe their 'interactions'.Photons are weird

So it's here you are

Okay, if you don't mind, let's start from the beginning, because I'm stuck on your definition of a Euclidean space and photons?

How do you find that Euclidean space allows photons to have mass?Make it as simple as you can please

Even thought you are right in that you can see the path taken in SpaceTime as a 'straight line' it is from the energy view this reasoning holds best to me. The photon will always take the path of least energy expenditure no matter how that space is defined. If you consider the path taken by placing detectors between you and the source and measure the light 'propagating' you should get a image of how that 'space' is distorted.

Could I assume that if 'straightened out' that space would resemble your idea of an Euclidean? But applying that reasoning it seems to me that the photon in a 'straightened space' would curve outwards from a sun seen, not inward?

As I see it, a gravity well turns the photon 'inward' towards the gravity well, for us 'being still' relative it as I think. But applied on a flat plane that same space fabric will get a greater area as it no longer acts in three dimensions plus time? Or am i thinking wrong here? As I said, I'm stuck on your Euclidean Space

And also, even if I 'straightened out' the path to fit, it doesn't give the photon a mass, only a complementary motion as described on a flat surface? Am I wrong, if so, where do I need to start to see it your way? ?

…not that I'm sure how that transformation from one type of geometry to the other would look as 'paths'. I have problems imagine it as it seems as 'bubbly' to me. Very hard to get a perfect fit imagining it, maybe there exist some tool for translating paths between them? It's not that hard to do from your Euclidean Space to our Einsteinian SpaceTime. A perfect triangle would 'bulge' if bent to a sphere for example and its angles would no longer give the correct result for a euclidean space but doing the opposite applying this perfect triangle in some arbitrarily chosen place in SpaceTime to then 'straighten it out' seems to hang on the gravitational potential at that place where I 'draw it' in SpaceTime, giving me different results depending on from where I 'lift' it.There seems no 'simple' way to do it geometrically? Or maybe I will see it later?

Quote from: yor_on on 27/03/2011 16:22:02So it's here you are Glad you found me, yor_on. With the anti-evangelizing rule, you have to click on my profile and go down the list of my posts to find the discussion of my "pet theory". I just now added some biography to my profile to make it a bit easier. Quote from: yor_on on 27/03/2011 16:22:02Okay, if you don't mind, let's start from the beginning, because I'm stuck on your definition of a Euclidean space and photons?Named for Euclid, it's the kind of space that you learned about in high school geometry class. It's the only kind of space most people know about, and the only kind there was until Minkowski came along. The "party line" is that Minkowski "discovered" the only real kind of space-time, and Euclidean space is as outmoded as the flat Earth. The truth is that Euclidean space is still valid, and the two kinds of mathematical space coexist as analogies of physical space. [EDIT: Minkowski invented a new mathematical analogy for physical space; he didn't discover something that already had a physical existence.] Quote from: yor_on on 27/03/2011 16:22:02How do you find that Euclidean space allows photons to have mass?Make it as simple as you can please Let's move that a little farther down, shall we? Quote from: yor_on on 27/03/2011 16:22:02Even thought you are right in that you can see the path taken in SpaceTime as a 'straight line' it is from the energy view this reasoning holds best to me. The photon will always take the path of least energy expenditure no matter how that space is defined. If you consider the path taken by placing detectors between you and the source and measure the light 'propagating' you should get a image of how that 'space' is distorted. The "path of least energy expenditure" is actually the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]". Action is energy times time; it has the same units as angular momentum, except the latter has one of its length vectors perpendicular to the motion instead of parallel. I believe this principle is valid in both kinds of space. If your detectors are aligned on a Euclidean grid, they will see the light bending around a star; if they are aligned on a Minkowski grid, they will see the light following a straight line. Quote from: yor_on on 27/03/2011 16:22:02Could I assume that if 'straightened out' that space would resemble your idea of an Euclidean? But applying that reasoning it seems to me that the photon in a 'straightened space' would curve outwards from a sun seen, not inward?Think of the two kinds of space as different kinds of graph paper. Suppose you draw a curve on lin-lin paper, trace it onto log-log paper and then stretch the log-log paper until it looks like lin-lin. You get a distortion of the original curve. If you trace that curve onto the inverse of log-log paper and stretch it to look like lin-lin paper your curve returns to its original shape. This can be done mathematically using the inverse of the log function (exponentiation). As far as I know, no mathematician has ever attempted the math to create an inverse function that converts Minkowski space-time back to Euclidean space. Do so successfully, and you might be nominated for a Nobel prize. My ADD is kicking in, here. I need to pause to watch a movie, or something. I'll come back later and edit in the rest of my answer. ____________________________________________________________Okay, I'm back.Quote from: yor_on on 27/03/2011 16:22:02As I see it, a gravity well turns the photon 'inward' towards the gravity well, for us 'being still' relative it as I think. But applied on a flat plane that same space fabric will get a greater area as it no longer acts in three dimensions plus time? Or am i thinking wrong here? As I said, I'm stuck on your Euclidean Space Are you imagining a gravity well as a bowling ball on a trampoline? It’s not that great of an analogy, and it doesn’t mean what people think it means. In truth, the vertical dimension, there, represents gravitational potential. The horizontal dimensions are a 2D slice of 4D space-time; they represent two spacial dimensions, with time and the other spacial dimension being constant. The normal force on the tennis ball is the gradient of gravitational potential, i.e. force of gravity on the tennis ball. When the tennis ball nears the bowling ball it trades gravitational potential (vertical height) for kinetic energy. The tennis ball can’t represent a photon; a photon in Minkowski space-time would come out the other side on the same 4D line it started on, but not on the same 3D line (with time being constant). It ain’t easy to explain, and it’s impossible to illustrate in pictures or models. The trampoline analogy illustrates gravity in Euclidean space, not Minkowski space-time. Quote from: yor_on on 27/03/2011 16:22:02And also, even if I 'straightened out' the path to fit, it doesn't give the photon a mass, only a complementary motion as described on a flat surface? Am I wrong, if so, where do I need to start to see it your way? ?The photon’s path is straight (by definition) in Minkowski space-time. Converting that straight 4D line in warped space-time to the bent path in 3D Euclidean space takes the warp out of the space-time. It’s much easier for me to envision the conversion to Minkowski space-time than it is converting back the other way. Converting back to Euclidean doesn't "give the photon mass"; it changes the meaning of the word "mass" to something which the photon has. Quote from: yor_on on 27/03/2011 16:22:02…not that I'm sure how that transformation from one type of geometry to the other would look as 'paths'. I have problems imagine it as it seems as 'bubbly' to me. Very hard to get a perfect fit imagining it, maybe there exist some tool for translating paths between them? It's not that hard to do from your Euclidean Space to our Einsteinian SpaceTime. A perfect triangle would 'bulge' if bent to a sphere for example and its angles would no longer give the correct result for a euclidean space but doing the opposite applying this perfect triangle in some arbitrarily chosen place in SpaceTime to then 'straighten it out' seems to hang on the gravitational potential at that place where I 'draw it' in SpaceTime, giving me different results depending on from where I 'lift' it.There seems no 'simple' way to do it geometrically? Or maybe I will see it later?Like I said, solve this mathematically and accept your Nobel prize.

...But I still don't see how a translation from one geometry to another brings mass. It must have to do with how you see the paths? And possibly also how you look at the idea of invariant mass?

...We are also describing gravitational gradients and 'convulsions' inside it. Like stress marks inside thick glass maybe.

The problem is that invariant matter and light is so noticeable different. To show a invariant mass for a photon would in fact invalidate the difference....

Named for Euclid, it's the kind of space that you learned about in high school geometry class. It's the only kind of space most people know about, and the only kind there was until Minkowski came along. The "party line" is that Minkowski "discovered" the only real kind of space-time, and Euclidean space is as outmoded as the flat Earth. The truth is that Euclidean space is still valid, and the two kinds of mathematical space coexist as analogies of physical space.

I don't think you're bicycling that much . But I better put in a slight declaimer too. That is that there is a clear difference between matter and 'energy/photons'. We can't just satisfy the difference by defining matter as 'photons' or even 'energy'. If they were 'the absolute same' then there is no reason for the difference at all as it seems to me. To me there has to be something that defines the 'transitions' that exist between matter and 'space' and light, allowing for the boundaries they get and the way motion can exist.

I like the idea of a particle as a 'gravity well' sort of ...

...If you made our universe into a sum of points, then some of those points would get one number defining them as space and other another number defining them as particles, just playing a little here okay. Imagine that we exchange the numbers for gravitational potentials instead, ignoring the Higgs mechanism for now, just let there be bumps those bumps will then need to be differentiated somehow to create particles and space and light. And maybe, when those 'bumps' organize themselves they create a three dimensional space? But to do it we also need a arrow of time, or causality chain, that makes it all come true. The bumps themselves are not enough for this. The chain, and as I see it, the observer of the chain is a must for it to 'exist'. Then we need a principle for 'growth' and there both you and me seem to think the same, I think? It has to be a fractal principle, don't you agree?

And then we come to 'forces' and 'energy'. Because as soon as you introduce a arrow there should become transformations, you might want to turn that around of course and define the transformations as 'times arrow' but, I don't know? It depends, both seems to build on a idea of there being something from where the 'arrow' comes, any which way you choose.

And photons, you seem to build it on the idea of photons propagating, right? And maybe also on that you see 'photons' as being the same under as over Planck time, so called 'virtual photons'. I do so at least, it's the arrow differing them to me, 'photons' don't care

And the shear forces, as I understand you to think of them, would be a aether, well, some sort of medium is a must, right? And the sub universe(s) would be what may exist under Plank length?

So, why not test 'gravity' as that 'medium'?I think gravity is a very promising candidate, although I do not know how it would translate into shear forces? But it's a interesting idea, not too far away from my own musings about it.

Even Einstein found it hard to avoid looking at space as a something, even though he didn't consider it a medium in the normal description of such a one having a 'density' and 'friction'. What you need to make it palatable for those looking at 'space' classically, like me, as being of no resistance is a way to translate it to what we experimentally can observe I think.

You've made a nice presentation of your thoughts here I think. As for dark matter I don't know, and I'm not even sure if I trust in it existing? Dark energy though? But you have two 'sub spaces' if I got you right? Why two? Are you thinking of one as QM and the other as a complementary to 'strings'?