Large Hardon Collider

[Max™]

Oh ok, then I would say I disagree with just about everything you just said.. Q.Q.

But oh well.

Go into more detail, don't just leave me hanging with a disagree!

Are you of the school of thought that spacetime itself is not endowed with actual physical properties? I doubt it from what you've said to me before, but it seems almost that way at times.


I suspect your disagreement lies in that it is hard to visualize a configuration space state for this threaded mesh?


The concept of a configuration space, i.e. the blackboard against which all the quantum fuzziness plays out, with all the possible fuzziness splayed out in a mindboggling manner, is based on the assumption that the Universe is inherently non-local at the smallest scales.


Schiller strangely did not reach the conclusion I did about locality and whatnot, but otherwise had remarkably the same sort of model occur to him.


In his model, the fuzziness lies in that the strands cannot be observed directly, they can only be observed as crossings, one strand overlaid against another is an event, the regions which are not at the crossing are not part of the event, but they are related in a probabilistic manner which (beautifully, I think) produces the Schroedinger equation from topological knot concepts.


The difference is, he still has a strange sort of semblance of a background against which events happen, yet manages to slip out of background dependence rather cleverly.

I think the reason he was able to do so is because the general model itself is spot on, the interpretation just needs some tuning.

He treats time in much the same manner as quantum models generally do, it is a way to order events and distinguish them.


I see it differently.

If you took a set of 3 threadsets, each orthogonally related to the other sets, in other words, a space filling grid with no less than a grid square of separation between intersections, and did not have a proper concept of time, you would not be able to alter this spacetime.

If you tried to let it run through some period, you'd realize that you left out the ability to change in a direction which was not established by the three sets themselves.


So you start from this rigid, boxy, grid like mesh marking out 3 spatial dimensions, and you need to add a way to change relationships which is not strictly along those three dimensions themselves.


If you bend or distort a portion of the grid, you are not moving it through the degrees of freedom of the other threads, nor it's own. You are moving it orthogonally to them, in fact.


As I've said in a few other posts: Time is the direction Space moves through.

You and I are moving along spatial degrees of freedom, and those degrees of freedom are moving, if they moved along each other, well, you'd get things like wormholes.

Instead they maintain a general sort of relationship to each other, and move in another manner, the warping and curvature of space, the distortion of the grid structure IS TIME.


Configuration space emerges because those various arrangements of the structure have a self interacting relationship, adjusting the states along "both" of the axes, towards the past, and the future, as we labeled them.

Those various arrangements coexist in a higher mathematical space which is interchangeable with the concepts of quantum configuration spaces, only the interactions are localized spatially, and extended temporally.

Rotating the cause of the fuzziness we observe in nature from being spread along the three spatial degrees, which is completely incompatible with the wonderful work done by Dear Albert, to being a spread along the temporal degree of freedom.

The effects would appear the same to us, and before you get the urge to label it a hidden variable idea, it is only hidden in the sense that observations performed at any given point in time depend on the states adjacent to it in time, as dictated by the mass of the body being observed.

If you just try to model the past interactions propagating into the future, you don't produce this result, you also need to consider the future interactions folding down into the observation, and in fact the observation itself affects both the future states as accepted by simple causal rules, but it affects the prior states as well.

[Max™]

Einstein was aware that General Relativity suggested this possibility!

He could not find a way to reconcile his impression of spacetime at large, with this implication of how it behaves at smaller scales, so he hid it in a most clever manner.

He set a simple constant in a different equation, which happened to be the first one to emerge which strictly depended on the modified value for the rate of time around the object. The equations for gravitational red shift of a photon.

In them he simply set that constant to equal 1 at infinite distance from the gravity well being examined.


Does that strike you as odd?

Is there any aspect of nature, any experiment which provides a reason to do this?

To state that the maximum rate at which an object can travel through time occurs when the object is in perfectly flat spacetime, so it must in fact be without mass.


What does that do?


It puts a maximum rate at which an object can interact along the temporal direction.

Anything with any mass must have less than this Rate = 1 value (which for clarification, if you took a beam of light, measured it for 1 lightsecond, marked it off as 300,000 kilometers (not exact value, btw, don't have it handy), and observed it with Rate = 1, you'd claim it took 1 second.

If you were heavier, you'd claim it took more than 1 second, because your impression of a second is actually .99993 or 0.5 or whatnot, depending on your mass and how severely dilated your motion across time is.

Is that the only way things can interact?

[Max™]

What if the point where the rate of time constant took the value R = 1 was not 0 mass?

What if it was a measurably nonzero mass?

Objects greater than that mass would still observe dilated interaction with time, R < 1, as relativity predicts, and various muon decay experiments confirmed, among other things (such as GPS).


What about objects lighter than that mass?

Would they have R > 1?

What would that mean?

What would an object which claimed events seemingly in an obvious causal order were in fact simultaneous?

You and I see a cup fall off the table, drop to the floor, shatter, and the pieces slide to a rest.

What if you interacted with time in a broader fashion?

You'd see the cup fall off and drop to the floor simultaneously, then it drops and shatters at once, then it shatters and the pieces slide to a stop.

Perhaps you'd see the entire sequence as a simultaneous event.

If that sounds strange, that's because you haven't heard about quantum mechanics obviously.

If you were to attempt to describe the behavior of two particles which were together and then moved apart, yet still seemed to be in a superposition of states in a purely local fashion, perhaps you would posit that the particles were interacting across an extended period of time.

So an event which to us is clearly distinct from the particles being connected, and thus would appear non-local to us R < 1 observers, is simply how objects interact when they are light enough to have R > 1.

[Max™]

What is the point?

It just so happens that nature provides a hint about this, the baffling manner in which quantum states and effects seem to collapse into the mundane world we see around us.

It is increasingly hard to observe quantum effects as you get closer and closer to the Planck Mass, in fact.

Looking at the relationship between that mass, the speed of light, the force of gravity, it seemed a plausible location for my wandering constant.

Setting R = 1 to occur there suddenly makes the disappearance of quantum strangeness make sense, of course you wouldn't see these effects if objects weren't interacting across these extended periods of time as lighter ones do.

Plot it as an inverse of the time dilation curve, and you get this more or less.

http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o...g?t=1251916722

If any of this makes sense, you should be embarrassed for either being insane as I am, or being an unbelievable physics dweeb, or maybe I'm just getting better at explaining it.

Either way, I'll continue later after I think more, if anyone is interested.

[Kuya]

K. Explain that so i can understand it!

[Mizango]

K. Explain that so i can understand it!

In America everyone understands this. We learn QM as infants.

[Kuya]

So that is why niggas are shooting eachother at relativistic speeds.

[Mizango]

rofl

[Effluo]

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Teenagers 'filmed sex act fearing Large Hadron Collider doomsday'

[Kryssan]

Well, I guess sex is better than ritualistic suicide... at least in my book, anyway.

[Max™]

K. Explain that so i can understand it!

A challenge, my good fellow, then it is a duel!


Let's say you are walking down the street, and up ahead you see a guy on the sidewalk with one end of a jump rope.

The other end extends past the corner of the building you're walking beside, and out of sight into an alley.

There is a knot tied in the rope which is only just visible past the corner, the rope beyond the knot is all hidden within the alley.


Let's say the guy you can see shakes his end of the rope.

If I asked you to predict what the knot would do, and you could not see how much further the rope extends into the alley, nor what is going on at the other end, what sort of accuracy could you give me?


At best you could probably give me something like a probability cloud, it's most likely to be found say, a foot above where you first saw it just after he shakes it, but there's a diminishing chance that it will be over to the side away from you, or down below it, or anywhere in between, etc, etc.


If you watched him shake his handle, you could make a guess about what is going on at the other end, but that's pretty much it.

Now.


The interaction between the guy shaking his handle and the knot is one way, towards the alley, yes?

Is there any interaction going back from inside the alley towards the knot? From the knot to the handle?


Obviously, if you've ever played jump rope, you know there is, waves ripple up and down and cross it several times from each little shake at one end.

(Spoilered this because the colors turned out really weird and it kinda clashes on my screen, probably yours too, fucking mspaint diagrams ftl)

Spoiler: show

http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o...ropeintime.jpg

That is how I am saying quantum particles behave in relation to time.

If two jump ropes were side by side and shook around, they wouldn't interact only at a single point where the knot is.

They'd interact along their entire length.

Electrons are no different, if I'm correct, and this entire model emerges from adjusting the placement of a single variable in GR.

That rate of time stuff I was talking about? It's how much of the jump rope you can see.

R < 1? You can see where the knot is, but from a bit of an angle, so it's not quite exact.
R = 1? You can see the knot clearly, facing it straight on.
R > 1? You can see the knot, and the rope around the knot. The higher the Rate value is, the broader the viewing angle you can observe, and thus interact with.

[Max™]

Damnnation, killed the discussion with excessive geekery.

So, out of curiousity as I just noticed the hit counts on my keepandshare files, any of ya'll been viewing them?

I don't recall giving the address directly much, but I'm kind of pleased at the traffic, though I wish I knew who it was so I could get some feedback, lol.

[Eliseos]

Damnnation, killed the discussion with excessive geekery.

I'm still just trying to figure out what you mean. I understand your analogy of the jump rope, but I don't know how it fits into your theory. I only skimmed it over a couple times, tomorrow during work I'll read it more in depth. This week has been really busy for me, in only two days of class, I have a week's worth of material to go through.

[Kuya]

What the guy above me said.

[Neosutra]

Damnnation, killed the discussion with excessive geekery.

So, out of curiousity as I just noticed the hit counts on my keepandshare files, any of ya'll been viewing them?

I don't recall giving the address directly much, but I'm kind of pleased at the traffic, though I wish I knew who it was so I could get some feedback, lol.

Ill try and find some time to comment on what exactly I disagree with, but I am going out of town at the moment to see my family before this next deployment, so I am low on time. Ill try to get to it this weekend.

[Max™]

I'm still just trying to figure out what you mean. I understand your analogy of the jump rope, but I don't know how it fits into your theory. I only skimmed it over a couple times, tomorrow during work I'll read it more in depth. This week has been really busy for me, in only two days of class, I have a week's worth of material to go through.

In quantum mechanics, a particle is described by a wave function, this is essentially a cloud of possible states for it to be found in. Solving the equations provides the likelihood of finding any given state.

These clouds of states are non-local effects, they are extended spatial interaction, if you will.


This is incredibly troublesome to work into Relativity for several reasons, as is the concept of a point like particle.

Some models have gotten around the point particle difficulties with extended particles, string theory is an example of this.

The effects in string theory still contain non-local behavior, which basically enables you to send influences faster than light, don't need to go too far into detail on that, probably.


Relativity can only model objects when they behave properly according to the speed of light, and it's relationship to time and energy.


Attempting to solve a Relativistic equation with non-local effects in it isn't just extremely difficult, even for an Einstein Field Equation, it usually produces unrealistic answers, closed timelike curves, runaway energy amounts, singularities, wormholes, etc. It doesn't turn out to look like the Universe we find ourselves in today.


Trying to make a quantum field model which emulates relativistic solutions has similar troubles, plus the pernicious infinities that come from trying to model a graviton wave function. Most wave functions have a diminishing amount of self interaction that can be modeled and while still in a sense potentially infinite, there are natural ways to tell what a realistic limit to that interaction should be.

Renormalization is one of these, but gravitons do not have a natural method to renormalize their wave functions, no way to find where you should stop calculating the self-interaction, and no way to avoid disastrous results for your calculation known as infrared or ultraviolet runaways.



My point with the jump rope analogy, and the rest of the idea, is that gravitons are not non-local, it feels to me that this should be obvious, but how would you propose that space is spatially extended across itself?

You then need to extend the extended portion across itself, and that portion again, so on, so forth.


The troublesome thing is, these behaviors can not be explained with any model which is both local, and fully causal.


Einstein subtly shut the door on the idea that things may not be interacting with time in what we would describe as a causal manner, but try as he might he could not do the same for non-local effects, though they do not work with GR... which was sort of close enough I guess.


When I realized what he did, and undid it, something which looks and acts like quantum mechanics fell out of general relativity.

Rotate the extended spatial effects to become extended temporal ones, you lose a sense of absolute cause and effect at the smallest scales, but you gain a way to combine them with the traditional domain of relativity, the very largest scales.

[Seraph]

"I think the weirdness and quirky not predicted behavior seen with quantum mechanics can be explained by feedback from the future in my space-time equations."

Wouldn't that have explained your entire posts easily, Max?

[Max™]

After the fact, more or less, but you forget the feedback from the present into the past should be considered as well.

The moment you were just in is not as you remembered it.

Simply stating it like that would demand a significant explanation though, as that is a hell of a thing to say without proof, so I got the explanation out of the way first.


Incidentally, that is just the tip of the iceberg, considering that idea is what led me to my weird knotted/threaded spacetime concept actually.

[Seraph]

Just trying to help you with a TLDR version.

[Mizango]

It's never TL;DR when you actually like typing it lol. I never feel like typing page upon page is a burden. Boy when I get started on a 15 min post, it seems like nothing at all.