Posts Tagged ‘something-from-nothing’

A Promising Precursor Field Geometry

November 29, 2016

I’ve been trying to find a geometrical description of how a unitary field twist could curve. If my hypothesis for the particle zoo arising from a precursor field is correct, the precursor field has to have a number of constraints. I’ve described what I know so far in depth in previous posts–here’s a summary of some of the basic requirements:
a: The precursor field cannot be an EM field with some sort of quantization added to it. The precursor field has to give rise to EM fields (and particles) but it has to be a continuous vector field with no magnitude (orientable only).
b: This field resides in R3 + I (same as the quantum oscillator spacetime) where quantization is achieved via twists that return to a background state pointing in the I direction.
c: There must be two connections built into the precursor field–a restoring force to I, and some kind of angular momentum transfer to neighboring field elements. This transfer force cannot be physical, otherwise field twists would not be possible since twists require a field discontinuity.
d: Field twists can be linear (eg photons) or confined to a finite space in the form of loops or knots or linked combinations of both.
e: There must be some means for a twist propagation to curve (otherwise the loop twists are not possible. I have investigated in detail various mechanisms within the R3 + I space, and believe I see a possibility enabled by the restoring force to the I dimension orientation.

The huge overwhelming problem with this hypothesis is that we appear to have zero evidence for such a precursor field or a background state or the two force connections I’ve described, the restoring force and the neighborhood connection force. I trudged forward with this anyway, knowing no-one out there would give this concept a second’s thought. I searched for possibilities in R3 + I where a loop twist could form and be stable, and for quite a while couldn’t find anything that made any sense.

I’ll tell you, I almost threw in the towel thinking this is a stupid quest. No evidence for a precursor field, no self-sustaining loop geometries that I could see, and experimental physics says any loop solution has to be too small to measure–a basic monkey-wrench in the whole unitary twist idea. I thought a lot, I’m just a dumb crackpot that doesn’t even have it wrong.

Yet something in the back of my mind says to me–when you look at the big picture, the particle zoo has to have a reductionist solution. For this existence to arise from nothing, there has to be some kind of field that gives rise to stable clumps we know as particles. For reasons I’ve discussed in previous posts, this can’t be some sort of computer simulation, nor can there be a creating entity. This all has to arise from nothing, I think–and from a deductive perspective, to me that means a single field must underlie particle formation. I’ve been able to come up with a number of constraints that this field has to have. I keep coming back to not seeing evidence for it, so I feel like I’m wandering around in a sea of ideas with no ability to confirm or deny any intermediate details of how things work. I see no realistic possibility that I could convince somebody this would work, I can’t even convince myself of that. Yet–there has got to be something. I have faith that Humanity can’t have reached the limit of understanding already!!

Not knowing what else to do other than abandon ship, I looked at R3 + I twist solutions, just about all of which couldn’t possibly work. Most fail because of symmetry issues or fail to provide an environment where twists could curve or be self-sustaining, regardless of how I describe the precursor field forces. Just yesterday, however, I happened upon a solution that has some promise. As discussed in previous posts, the restoring force to I is an enabler for quantization, but I realized it’s also an enabler for altering the path of a twist. I used the example in a previous post of how a field twist in R3 will curve if a regional part of the field is tilted in another dimension (imagine propagating a falling dominoe sequence through a sea of dominoes that is already partway orthogonally tilted). I am still checking this out, but it looks like there is one way to form the twist where this happens–if the twist loop resides in two of the dimensions of R3, and the axial twist in that loop resides in the remaining R3 dimension, but the restoring force is to the I dimension direction, the center of the loop will hold an element pointing in the I direction, thus causing all of the surrounding elements including the twist loop itself to feel a swirly (ref the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon!) that causes the twist propagation to pass through the field that is curved toward the center of the R3 loop.

This concept is ridiculously difficult to visualize, but essentially the I restoring force causes the field to always twist toward the center, regardless of loop orientation within R3. This is what the unitary twist field has to have–any other dimensional geometry simply does not provide the necessary twist curve. Believe me, I tried all other combinations–this is the only one that seems to consistently work no matter what kind of a topological loop configuration is used. Here is a pathetic attempt to draw out what I am thinking…

Agemoz

twist_in_restoring_i

Advertisements

One Rule To Rule Them All: The One Question Every Human Being Must Ask

August 18, 2016

I’ve been doing a great deal of thinking and analysis on what the precursor field would have to be.  I’ve had some discussions and conclusions about the precursor field that I’ll get into shortly here–but I wanted to digress a little because one of the discussions homed in on why I’m doing this work.  The discussion was extensive but revealed a crucial point about humanity’s search for meaning.  Let’s see if I can summarize the extensiveness of this conversation down to the bare essentials in a clear way:

The main driver for the approach I am taking is that this universe emerged from nothing.  To put it another way by using a popular physics aphorism, it’s not turtles all the way down, the first turtle emerged from nothing.  As I detailed in several previous posts, I see how this could happen–essentially a massive generalization of the principle that infinity times zero can give a finite number.  This drives many of the requirements of the precursor field that I am developing which causes emergence of quantized particles and emergence of particle motion and the EM field, the strong force, and related properties.

This question–did the universe emerge from nothing–is *the* most fundamental question a human being can ask, and is beautiful and elegant in its own right.  It encompasses many issues, especially the question “Is there a God”.  It’s rare that a question can be formed with such simplicity in our language.  The whole study of philosophy of all forms spends a lot of time clarifying what is a “real” question versus what is semantics, i.e, an artifact of the language we choose to work in.

For example, the common philosophical study of “I seek the Truth” raises semantic questions like “what do you mean by truth?”  “What does the concept of seeking mean?”  Or, the question “What is the meaning/purpose of life?”  Well, what does “meaning” mean to you?  How do you define life?  Does it involve consciousness?  Memory?  A tree is alive, and on a very long timescale likely has the same stimulus/response capability as faster moving animals or humans.  It’s really tough to extract the various philosophical issues out of the semantics of most questions.

But the question “did the universe emerge from nothing”, while not immune from semantics, cuts to the core issue easily and elegantly.  It asks whether the observed rules of our existence are intrinsic or not.  If there is even just one rule that has to be there in addition to nothing (and yes, there are semantic issues with “nothing”, so we do have to tread carefully even here)–then the universe didn’t emerge from absolutely nothing.  Then you are forced to ask what caused that rule to emerge, and with a lot of thought I think you have to declare that there is a God–an intellect, a being, or other organized structure that formed the universe.  Then you have to ask what formed those.  It is a recursion of thought that leads some to say “it’s turtles all the way down”, that there is no beginning.  But if you do that, you still are saying there is a God, I think.  This question is so elegant because the dividing line is so precise.  Either the universe emerged from nothing, or else there is no point in continuing because a God or Being or Computer or *something* takes a turtle, puts it there, and voila, we as humans emerge.

The assumption of a God is so problematic in my mind–you simply cannot answer the question of how did this universe get created, you also *cannot ask the question why are we here*!!!  By defining a God, we have taken that question out of our hands and put it in the hands of an unknowable entity.  By saying it’s turtles all the way down (similar to saying there is no beginning, the universe has always existed), we throw up our hands and say these questions cannot be answered.

On the other hand, if we study the approach that we came from nothing, there is a path that can truly be followed, and that is exactly what I am trying to do.  I assume this precursor field had to emerge from nothing and that constrains the characteristics of the field in many ways.  For example, the particle zoo has to emerge from it, so a geometrical basis should exist.  Or, getting on the subject I’ve been focusing on, the precursor field has to emerge from nothing, so it cannot have extra degrees of freedom, which implies rules preceded the field–a no-no in forming the field description.  If there are rules, there has to be a God of some form.

The astonishing thing to me is how clear the path for humanity has to be.  There really is only one study worth doing–how could we emerge from nothing.  Any other explanation for our existence appears to have no fundamental value in investigating!

I hope you find this digression fascinating and helpful why I am doing this study.   It has so far led to the following conclusions, some of which I’ve described in previous posts:

The precursor field cannot require continuity (differentiability) otherwise quantized twists are not possible, and such twists are required for the formation of stable particles in the particle zoo

The field has no vector magnitude, it is a unitary directional field with an R3 + I dimension plus time.  This means that the field elements are orientable (that is, there is a property of the field element that distinguishes from other field elements both by physical location and by direction)

The elements of the field do not move.  They can only rotate.  Movement is an emergent concept that results from the formation of rotation structures that can propagate through the field

Rotation of a field element induces rotation of neighborhood field elements.  This induction is infinity elastic otherwise the field would be forced to be continuous and differentiable, which is contradictory to enabling field twists

Field elements are quantized by creating a preferred orientation to the imaginary dimension direction.  This, combined with the ability to form field twists, is what allows the formation of stable particles

There are other properties I am uncovering, but this list is a good starting point for setting up a computer simulation and for analytic derivations.  My goal is to uncover the specific quantized states available and see if they match with what we see in the particle zoo.

Agemoz

Basis Field For Particles

July 16, 2016

I think every physicist, whether real or amateur or crackpot, goes through the exercise of trying to work out a geometry for the field that particles reside in.  This is the heart of many issues, such as why is there a particle zoo and how to reconcile quantum theory with relativity, either special or general.  There are many ways to approach this question–experimental observation, mathematical derivation/generalization, geometrical inference, random guessing–all followed by some attempt to verify any resulting hypothesis. I’ve attempted to do some geometrical inference to work out some ideas as to what this field would have to be.

Ideas are a dime-a-dozen, so throwing something out there and expecting the world to take notice isn’t going to accomplish anything.  It’s primarily the verification phase that should advance the block of knowledge we call science.  This verification phase can be experimental observation such as from a collider, mathematical derivation or proof, or possibly a thorough computer simulation.  This system of growing our knowledge has a drawback–absolute refusal to accept speculative ideas which are difficult or impossible to verify (for example, in journals) can lock out progress and inhibit innovation.  Science investigation can get hide-bound, that is stuck in a loop where an idea has to have ultimate proof, but ultimate proof has become impossible, so no progress is made.

This is where the courageous amateur has some value to science, I think–they can investigate speculative possibilities–innovate–and disseminate the investigation via something like a blog that nobody reads.  The hope is that pursuing speculative ideas will eventually reach a conclusion or path for experimental observation that verifies the original hypothesis.  Unlike professional scientists, there are no constraints on how stupid or uninformed the amateur scientist is and no documentation or credentials that says that science can trust him.  The signal-to-noise is going to be so high that it’s not worth the effort to understand or verify the amateur.  The net result is that no progress in our knowledge base occurs–professional scientists are stuck as publishable ideas and proof/verification become more and more difficult to achieve, but no one wants to bother with the guesses of an amateur.  I think the only way out is for an amateur to use his freedom to explore and publish as conscientiously as he can, and for professionals to occasionally scan amateur efforts for possible diamonds in the rough.

OK, back to the title concept.  I’ve been doing a lot of thinking on the field of our existence.  I posted previously that a non-compressible field yields a Maxwell’s equation environment which must have three spatial dimensions, and that time is a property, not a field dimension as implied by special relativity.  I’ve done a lot more thinking to try to pin down more details.  My constraints are driven primarily by the assumption that this field arose from nothing (no guiding intelligence), which is another way of saying that there cannot be a pre-existing rule or geometry.  In other words, to use a famous aphorism, it cannot be turtles all the way down–the first turtle must have arisen from nothing.

I see some intermediate turtles–an incompressible field would form twist relations that Maxwell’s equations describe, and would also force the emergence of three spatial dimensions.  But this thinking runs into the parity problem–why does the twist obey the right hand rule and not the left hand rule?  There’s a symmetry breaking happening here that would require the field to have a symmetric partner that we don’t observe.  I dont really want to complexify the field, for example to give it two layers to explain this symmetry breaking because that violates, or at least, goes in the wrong direction, of assuming a something emerged from nothing.

So, to help get a handle on what this field would have to be, I’ve done some digging in to the constraints this field would have.  I realized that to form particles, it would have to be a directional field without magnitude.  I use the example of the car seat cover that is made of orientable balls.  There’s no magnitude (assuming the balls are infinitely small in the field) but are orientable.  This is the basic structure of the Twist Field theory I’ve posted a lot about–this system gives us an analogous Schroedinger Equation basis for forming subatomic particles from twists in the field.

For a long time I thought this field had to be continuous and differentiable, but this contradicts Twist Theory which requires a discontinuity along the axis of the twist.  Now I’ve realize our basis field does not need to be differentiable and can have discontinuities–obviously not magnitude discontinuities but discontinuities in element orientation.  Think of the balls in the car seat mat–there is no connection between adjacent ball orientations.  It only looks continuous because forces that change element orientation act diffusely, typically with a 1/r^2 distribution.  Once I arrived at this conclusion that the field is not constrained by differentiability, I realized that one of the big objections to Twist Field theory was gone–and, more importantly, the connection of this field to emergence from nothing was stronger.  Why?  Because I eliminated a required connection between elements (“balls”), which was causing me a lot of indigestion.  I couldn’t see how that connection could exist without adding an arbitrary (did not arise from nothing) rule.

So, removing differentiability brings us that much closer to the bottom turtle.  Other constraints that have to exist are non-causality–quantum entanglement forces this.  The emergence of the speed of light comes from the fact that wave phase propagates infinitely fast in this field, but particles are group wave constructions.  Interference effects between waves are instantaneous (non-causal) but moving a particle requires *changing* the phase of waves in the group wave, and there is a limit to how fast this can be done.  Why?  I don’t have an idea how to answer this yet, but this is a good geometrical explanation for quantum entanglement that preserves relativistic causality for particles.

In order to quantize this field, it is sufficient to create the default orientation (this is required by Twist Field theory to enable emergence of the particle zoo).  I have determined that this field has orientation possible in three spatial dimensions and one imaginary direction.  This imaginary direction has to have a lower energy state than twists in the spatial dimension, thus quantizing local twisting to either no twists or one full rotation.  A partial twist will fall back to the default twist orientation unless there’s enough energy to complete the rotation.  This has the corollary that partial twists can be computed as virtual particles of quantum field theory that vanish when integrating over time.

The danger to avoid in quantizing the field this way is the same problem that a differentiable constraint would require.  I have to be careful not to create a new rule regarding the connectivity of adjacent elements.  It does appear to work here, note that the quantization is only for a particular element and requires no connection to adjacent elements.  The appearance of a connection as elements proceed through the twist is indirect, driven by forces other than some adjacent rubber-band between elements.  These are forces acting continuously on all elements in the region of the twist, and each twist element is acting independently only to the quantization force.   The twist discontinuity doesn’t ruin things because there is no connection to adjacent elements.

However, my thinking here is by no means complete–this default orientation to the imaginary direction, and the force that it implies, is a new field rule.  Where does this energy come from, what exactly is the connection between elements that enforces this default state?

 

Oh, this is long.  Congratulations on anyone who read this far–I like to think you are advancing science in considering my speculation!

Agemoz

Something-From-Nothing, Incompressible Fluids, and Maxwell’s Equations

May 22, 2016

I have made the claim that our universe must have emerged from nothing via the infinity times zero equation, and that we can derive the behavior of our universe from the geometry of a something-from-nothing system.  The something-from-nothing basis (which I’m going to start abbreviating as SFN) suggests an incompressible fluid, and two really cool consequences result from an incompressible fluid–Maxwell’s equations and three dimensions.

The assumption that a SFN system results in an incompressible fluid is a step of negative logic–you cannot have a compressible fluid as the basis of a SFN system because it implies density variation as a fundamental property–an extra rule on top of a nothing existence.  Then the question has to be asked, what is the origin of that rule, how did it come from nothing–and we’ve lost the deductive power of assuming a SFN system.  You can eventually create compressible fluids but you have to start assuming no density variations (incompressible fluid) and show how such a thing could emerge.

Why assume a fluid at all from a SFN?  That’s a much more complex question that I really want to flesh out later.  For now I would like to state that a fluid is just the result of the emergence of movement of elements of a field from an SFN system.  Developing that step is crucial to making a workable SFN theory, but for right now I want to show what results when you take that step.

An incompressible fluid is a really interesting concept that has no equivalent in real life.  Even an idealized steel bar with no internal atomic flexing is compressible by special relativity–apply a force to one end, and relativity dictates that the bar will compress slightly as the effect of the force propagates at the speed of light across the bar.  But an incompressible fluid violates special relativity and cannot exist as an entity with mass in real life.  However as a basis of a SFN system it turns out it can exist–and the very rules of special relativity have to emerge in the form of Maxwell’s Equations and three spatial dimensions.

You can see this when you realize that an infinite volume of an incompressible fluid cannot be pushed in the direction of an applied force.  Not because of infinite mass (mass emerges from an SFN system, but you can’t use it yet else you will engage in circular reasoning) but because an incompressible fluid won’t move without simultaneous displacement of an adjacent region.  Another way to state it is that incompressible fluids require a complete path for movement to happen.  In addition, movement of that path of fluid cannot initiate unless the limit of the size of the region containing the path approaches zero.  You can see that such a requirement eliminates movement in the direction of the force, only a transverse loop is possible.  You cannot have movement in either a one or two dimensional system–both would require movement to occur in the direction of the force in the infinitesimal limit.  You must have three dimensions*.  And, more profoundly, it is easy to see that Maxwell’s field equations are nothing more than the description of the motion of a fluid that rotates around the axis of an applied force (or vice versa).

Wait–I just said the incompressible fluid cant exist in real life, and is limited to an infinitesimal neighborhood?  Doesn’t that sound pretty useless as a basis for the universe?  No, because we use calculus all the time to integrate infinitesimal effects into a macroscale result.  Think Huygen’s principle, or better yet, Feynman path integrals, and the summing of all possible particle paths of LaGrange motion equations and QFT.  Even quantum entanglement has a geometrical explanation in this model–let me save those for a later post, this is about 10 times longer than anybody will read already!

Agemoz

*You must have at least three dimensions, but this analysis does not prove that more aren’t possible.  I’m thinking at this point that since more dimensions aren’t necessary, LaGrange type minimum energy paths eliminate their existence–although at gravitational scales we start to see evidence of spacetime curvature (more dimensions?).  There’s also arguments for more tiny scale dimensions when QFT is merged with relativity–but on an everyday macro scale of our existence, its quite clear that SFN system educes three dimensions.

Relativity and Something From Nothing Dimensions

May 20, 2016

The main guiding principles of the theories proposed in this blog is that this universe we observe have intrinsic principles of geometry that emerged from nothing.  This process of thinking generally leads logically to verifiable conclusions about how the universe works, but also points to some notable exceptions that conflict with currently established peer-reviewed science.  The question of whether a scientist/theoretician should take the time to look at the proposed conflicting theories or just label them as speculative or crackpot is a subject often covered in this blog, but I’m not going to go there today.  Two something-from-nothing conclusions that conflict with established science are the emergence of particles from field twists, and the time-is-a-property concept.  Both conclusions are accepted by no working theoretician, but I have seen reason to consider them and have discussed the former at length in this blog.  I don’t often talk about the relativity/gravity area but have been doing some thinking here lately.

I want to discuss special relativity in the context of the something-from-nothing principle because it leads me to conclude that time and space are not the same concept just observed from different frames of reference.  It will take me a bunch of posts here to flesh out my thinking on this, but in summary, I am suspecting that the interconnectedness of space and time does not mean that time is a dimension in the same way that space is.  In particular, I have come to the conclusion that time is a property of objects in space, and that means that once an object has exhibited a particular time event by an observer, it is not possible to physically revisit that event–by physically revisit, I mean exist in the same arbitrarily small spacetime neighborhood of the event where the observer’s time clock has two different non-local neighborhood times.  In other words, it is not possible for an observer to go back or forward in time to revisit an event he has already observed.  He can certainly observe photons that have traveled from the past or even the future depending on how frames of reference are set up, but not physically revisit as I’ve described here.

Let me elaborate in the next few posts, because knowledgeable relativist theorists will object that there are ways to bend spacetime in pretty extreme ways. The math of special relativity shows a duality between space and time that appears to show that time can be called a dimension.  For this reason, the standard interpretation has been to call time a dimensional quality, which implies that for some observer it is possible to arbitrarily visit any point on the timeline description of events for an object.

I’ve always questioned this.  There has never been a provable instance of actual dimensional behavior of time when defined this way (observer with two different timeline points in the same local spacetime neighborhood of an event).  I suspect that this is not possible for any observer because we are interpreting the math to mean time is a dimensional concept when in fact it is a property of an object that has a direct mathematical coupling to the objects location in space.  Or, to put it another way–they both seem to have dimensional behavior but that is an artifact that both are something-from-nothing concepts.

I’ve discussed the whole something-from-nothing emergence many times in posts on this blog, it essentially means that in a “universe” where there is nothing, it is possible or even certain that certain concepts including the emergence of objects, space, and time must happen–come into existence.  I’ll detail why in future posts (you can go back to previous posts to see discussion there too)–in its simplest form, my thinking is that an infinite emptiness things emerge because the multiplication of zero (nothing) times infinity does not remain zero.   All it takes is a fold, a density change of one of an infinite range of substances, over an infinite distance, over an infinite amount of time–and a contortion of unimaginable size and energy, a big bang could emerge.  Not possible in a finite world, but a nothing by definition, is infinite–no boundary conditions (otherwise you have a something!).  Uggh, you say–what a misappropriation of a mathematical equation!  Maybe so, you might be right–but to me, I see an open door (infinite emptiness) as to how our existence could form without the need for some intelligence of some sort to willfully create it.

I’ve always felt that this has to be true–I think it is a logical starting point to assume that the universe started from nothing.  The problem with assuming anything else, such as a creator, is obvious–what created the creator, and what created the infrastructure that allowed a creator to form.  There really is only one way that does not get into the recursive problem of creation–the formation of something from nothing.   This is the basis, the fundamental rule, of all of my thinking*–I assume the universe evolved from nothing and ask what kinds of physical structures could emerge given that constraint.

What does that say about the philosophical question of is there a God and a purpose or meaning of life?  I think quite a lot, but my focus is much more on what does this mean for the mechanics, the physics, of this existence in the hope of finding a provable and observable confirmation, something new that would prove or disprove my thinking process.

Will I be able to prove this idea?  Will I be able to convince you?  Probably not–I am nothing in the world of theoreticians and thinkers, and do not have the infrastructure access that would allow review and development of these ideas.  Extraordinary ideas require extraordinary proof, and I’m not equipped to provide that.  But I can still present the concepts here and a reader can think for themselves if there’s a possibility here and what to do about it.

More to come

*Note, there actually is a whole realm of beginning-of-universe alternatives I am skipping over due to the fact that I am making a specific set of assumptions about time.  The concept of creation is, of course, intrinsically connected to the interpretation of the observation of time.  There will be a variety of other possibilities of the formation of the universe based on different interpretations of what time means.  So far, I’ve not really investigated those because the something-from-nothing concept appears to be a very solid approach that takes time at face-value and does not require any unintuitive approaches to how time works or things like time as a dimension, which as I said above, does not have experimental confirmation.