Theory of Everything.

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Orion68, Aug 11, 2019.

  1. Orion68 Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    The db exists in 3 dimensional spacetime where it has a location and on that location the curvature and thus the bending of spacetime are infinite.
     
    Ethernos 1997 likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ethernos 1997 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    153
    The equation written about db is it correct?
    And did u discuss on physics forums and what do they think? I am not good in math.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Orion68 Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    The equation is correct, but also an assumption. It has been derived step by step through deducing and writing computeralgebra to support the theory. In the end the only logical conclusion for the curvature around a db is according to formula (0).

    The theory has not yet been discussed on many fora because it isn't taken al too serious. It seems to defy QM, which is not true, it just lays down an even more deeper, fundamental explanation for the observed forces and particles. This theory is like putting on glasses to see even sharper into the micro world then before.
     
    Ethernos 1997 likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ethernos 1997 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    153
    U should patent it.
    Since there is no way of disproving or approving this theory like whether alien exist or not. Only time will tell and when technology improve u might become the first man to theorize this.
     
    Orion68 likes this.
  8. Orion68 Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    There might be a way to prove or disprove this model. That is by programming the in the article proposed mathematical model. If the simulation works it should give us a view on the subatomic world like never before. If in a macro way the same interactions are observable as described and predicted by QM, only with more accuracy the model might prove to be a description of reality.
     
  9. Adirian Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    My nonsense also involves lots of infinite curvature, which led me to a problem:

    What is the position of your infinite-curvature point measured in?

    The distance from a point of infinite curvature to anywhere else is, well, infinite.

    The space between two such points becomes hyperbolic.

    Relativity saves the idea from complete disaster (if you calculate distance for curvature, using curved space, the particle ceases to interact with the rest of the universe), but doesn't solve the next problem, which is that two such particles will fall into each other and become non-interfering (because curvature from particle A will curve the curvature for particle B into meaninglessness, and vice versa - that is, the distance for the purposes of curvature gets modified by the curvature of the second particle).

    So how does your model deal with the issue that the particles should be pairing up and effectively falling out of the universe?
     
  10. Orion68 Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    Not nice to start a post stating the idea is nonsense and in the following questions you want an answer to my nonsense. Not very encouraging to me.

    Concerning the db (pointparticle)

    The distance between the db's is completely relative to each other. There is no fixed system. It's all about measurements in a range of inifinity. So one can say that the distance from a point to a certain point is twice the distance from the point to a third point. In this way one can fix their relative postions to eachother. Btw. Curvature has the dimension meter^1, so it is measured in meters.

    In the article we have tried to build a bridge between curvatures description without measurable parameters into measurable parameters in the chapter 'Gravitation in relation to curvature'.

    The thing is that you compare the universe and what happens when two points approach each other, like this is a stable sitation and thus process. In the universe this is never the case since there is an infinite number of db's (point particles). Particles pairing up form macro structures which we can observe as elementary particles to whole stars. One has to understand the process of huge clusters of db's (point particles) and their interactions, then one can see the db's pair up temporarily and then fall apart again, so no macro structure of db's is ever stable and an increasing curvature between two particles will eventually degrade again (see your own hyperbolic statement concerning two particles). Though it might seem that for the outside observer the two point system is ever increasing it's curvature, since time dilation makes those processes in elementary particles very slow, in the end the curvature will go down again. That's because there are always other point particles to disturb a 'stable' process.

    Falling out of the universe? Please elaborate on that if you will.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2019
  11. Orion68 Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    Edit (typo in the previous post): Curvature=m^-1 (the dimension with which curvature is described)
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2019
  12. Adirian Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    I find it is healthy to maintain a mental separation between myself and my ideas, since all ideas must be discarded sooner or later as new ideas arise.

    As for pairing degrading, it is possible; you have a lot of infinities running around in this model, including an infinite amount of energy between any two pairs of particles. Space-time is just a churn of gravitational waves as particles fall too close to one another, waves that get redshifted and blueshifted moving out of and into the different particles. It's a chaotic mess of instability.

    However, there is a point of stability: If a particle falls directly into another. Infinite curvature curved by infinite curvature just kind of... falls off the universe. No path connects. And an infinite amount of energy is left in the universe as a result. I'll return to this in a bit.

    "Directly into" may seem like it is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, and it is. In a sense, the odds of two infinite spaces precisely aligning is basically nil.

    Except these infinite spaces are attracted to one another, and dumping energy as gravitational waves constantly. The energy coming in, meanwhile, is both random and statistically balanced in terms of orientation. The only thing decaying here is the orbit, as they fall into one another.

    Now, having fallen into each other, what happens? Curvature both "creates" more distance, and decays as the square of distance. If one infinite curvature looks like a pit, two infinite curvatures looks like a balloon being inflated. The closer the points get, the bigger the balloon, and the smaller the mouth attaching it to the rest of the universe.

    When they align, the mouth closes, and the balloon is no longer connected to the universe at all. It "floats away".
     
  13. Orion68 Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    I understand what you mean. Thank you for the extensive explanation.

    In the db model a situation of alignment is not possible. In three dimensional spacetime the angle on which two db's are approaching each other is always such that however relative small the distance will become for the rest of the universe, the movement paths of the two approaching db's will always be one of approaching and, after the nearest point, distancing. There is no perfect circle alignment for a two-db-system, the paths are always spiral shaped, however near to a circle the movement tracks may seem. So when approaching inward, there is an distancing after the nearest encounter, an outward movement, there is no alignment.

    I've tested my prior statement with computer programs to see how two db's behave when moving in each others curvature. The programs give the output visually, the db's moving in time. That's how I came into understanding, calculating and visualizing that there is no perfect alignment, not ever.

    I hope my explanation makes sense.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2019
  14. Orion68 Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    When I think further. What if two particles approach each other in such a way that the distance allways gets smaller (precise opposite directions nearing each other)? Theoreatical it should be possible... Then we have an ever increasing spacetime curvature between the already infinite cuvatures. I think this is the situation you ment. But still it will be in our universe, even with an ever increasing spacetime curvature. And its influence on spactime would be relatively small... But yes, I do agree, such a situation can theoretically exist. Hmm...
    Then such a sitaution can only be undone by the choas of another approaching db particle, of which there are infinite, undoing this specific movement path. So even such a situation would not last forever.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2019
  15. Adirian Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    That is one possibility. Another is that the third particle doesn't have enough energy to escape; this configuration of three particles falling into each other is even more stable (for a given value of stable) than two, as a fourth is more likely to be captured in turn.

    My own solution was that, while the local curvature is infinite, the total curvature is finite (and equal to mass), by having negative and positive curvature alternate.

    (I also just let the infinite curvature particles fall out of the universe to begin with. Infinite negative curvature just equates to a region of space-time where there is no space-time. There's no "there" there.)
     
  16. Orion68 Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    In my view in the db model the ever increasing curvature configuration mentioned is higly improbable and when happening it will be unbalanced by the 'chaos' of the probable db movement paths. Though it may take a long, long time. Energy and mass are properties of spacetime, all that is relevant in the case of a multiple db particle are its internal movement paths of the individual db's.

    And in my view there is no negative curvature, not even alternating.

    So it seems our theorizing diverges from each other.

    But it might be that your idea is more relevant than mine, I would not know.
    Maybe you could elaborate more on your theory?
     
  17. Adirian Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    I bring it up only as one possible solution; I posted a partial write-up of bits of it in the pseudoscience section, if you are curious.

    Talking about your idea, is there a minimum density of db particles in order to keep the system from falling into a stable configuration?
     
  18. Orion68 Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    I am curious, you've posted on a lot of subjects. Ah, it's the same thread. I'll read it and try to understand it.

    Concerning the density of db's, how many db's per cubic unit of spacetime is uncharted territory for me. Even density is a relative concept. How to measure the density is still unclear to me. Is it localized (probably) and on which scale (every scale probably)? One could say that we live in a certain range of infinte curvature of spacetime where the density seems to be such that it doesn't fall into that stable situation you propose, but in the situation we observe. This might be a local phenomenon (our universe as local).
     
  19. Adirian Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    Depending on how you think about it, density is entirely dependent on the scale of perspective; no matter how much you zoom in (or zoom out) on such a particle, it will look identical.

    This is because there is a maximum local curvature (if you remember that curvature is change in distance, this is the point at which any additional curvature creates exactly as much additional distance as necessary to keep curvature constant). (There's still some serious tidal forces, mind, and it would rip a human apart, but not quite atom by atom; you can look it up, it is maximum acceleration, or calculate it, if you want to do a really annoying integral.)

    I ask because if you can imagine a density at which the particles are thinly spaced enough to fall into each other, you can just zoom in until that is the effective density. (Because you're entirely correct in the idea that density is a very ill-defined concept with regard to particles of infinite curvature.)

    Hrm. Alright. I'll leave that as a disagreement on intuitions.

    What gives rise to scale-specific phenomena? That is, what makes the size we are at special enough to have matter (if anything)?
     
  20. Orion68 Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    It might be that in a fractaloïd way the matter generating process repeats itself within specific curvature ranges.
    For example in a black hole, where all matter is condensed to individual db's. It might be that specific matter will be generated in the black hole, completely exotic to the matter in our universe because of different general db movement paths. And in analogy to the black hole, our entire universe might be a black hole for an observer above our universe where our black hole (universe) is a place where specific types of particles are generated.
     
  21. Adirian Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    Hm. Is the process of matter generation ongoing, or did it reach a certain point and slow down/stop?
     
  22. Orion68 Registered Member

    Messages:
    72
    Particle generation is always going on, breakdown as well. In the db model there is no big bang, the db's are eternal, only the macro structures come to exist and degrade.
    In case of a black hole scenario for our universe it might be that our universe came into existance in a merger of two black holes, and a future merger might also be its end.
     
  23. Adirian Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    Your particles are something like naked singularities already.

    Hm.

    Mass and energy are something like... interference patterns in the curvature? Pondering in terms of Fourier transformations, I can see the model as an extreme Fourier transformation of MWI, if you treat mass and energy as curvature.
     

Share This Page