What really is spacetime and what really are elementary quantum particles?

Imagine spacetime is an emergent property which is a gas-like medium, created by virtual quantum particles keep popping in and out of existence for extremely short durations, which is also the medium of quantum vacuum. Imagine what flat spacetime is the volume where probabilities for creation of positive and/or negative energy/mass virtual particles are equal. Imagine positive curvature spacetime is the volume where probabilities for creation of positive energy/mass virtual particles are higher. Imagine negative curvature spacetime is the volume where probabilities for creation of negative energy/mass virtual particles are higher. (Realize then spacetime would be really a medium of probability.) Imagine when a region has excess positive energy available, positive energy/mass virtual particles are not just created more but stay in existence longer.

And whenever/wherever the energy is higher than necessary thresholds, virtual particles created as real particles. (And when a region has excess negative energy available instead, then negative energy/mass virtual/real particles are created similarly instead.)

Imagine when light passes thru spacetime regions with different positive/negative curvature, it is like passing thru gas/fluid regions with positive/negative index of refraction.

(So a positive energy/mass particle/object creates a field of positive spacetime curvature around of itself, which we call its gravitational field.)

Realize if gravitational field is polarization of virtual particles, then creating Casimir Force is actually creating artificial spacetime curvature/gravity!

Imagine all elementary quantum particles of Standard Model, which are used to create virtual particles, which create the gas-like spacetime medium, are really quasiparticles of a fluid-like medium, like bubbles created by a boiling fluid. Imagine that fluid-like medium is created by a Cellular Automaton Quantum Computer (CAQC) with Planck length scale cells of qubit registers. Imagine each elementary quantum particle is a like a cluster of information/probability. Probably like a spherical probability wave, traveling in the fluid-like medium created by the CA, maybe similar to CA used for fluid simulation, like LGCA(FHP)/LBM. (Also realize that what happens in CA used for fluid simulation, about predictability of the future (nature of time), is really similar to what happens in our real physical Universe:

In microscale future is unpredictable (particles move randomly), but it becomes more and more predictable with certainty, as we watch it in higher and higher scales. Imagine we just watch/observe that CA world by using bigger and bigger tiles, calculating average particle number/velocity/acceleration for each tile. Then the CA world starts following the rules of classical physics (Navier-Stokes Equation), better and better. Meaning the future becomes better and better predictable, as we observe the CA world in higher and higher scales.

Which is very similar to how future events are unpredictable with certainty in QM scale, compared to how future events are predictable with certainty in Relativity scale. And predictability of future events, is in between those two extremes, in Newton Mechanics (human) scale.)

If what are above are assumed to be true, then it would mean somehow quasiparticles of the Planck-scale medium, are allowed to exist only as a discrete and limited set, which are the elementary quantum particles of Standard Model. (So nothing like soap bubbles, which have a continuous size range, and also have identical/similar nature.)

Also obviously this Planck-scale medium has a limited max signal/information travel speed which we call the speed of light (c). So quantum particles without rest mass always travel at c.

And quantum particles with rest mass travel at lower speeds depending on their rest mass plus kinetic energy. What slows them down I am guessing is the Higgs particle field across our Universe.

So rest mass is like a binary property of elementary quantum particles, with possible values of 0 or 1. So if it is 1 then it creates a drag, moving thru the Higgs Field, because of interaction with it. Then its speed thru the Higgs field depends on its total energy (rest mass/energy plus kinetic energy, which determines size (wavelength) of the particle). And if its total energy is greater, then its size/wavelength is smaller, and it moves faster thru the Higgs field and so thru spacetime.

I think Standard Model is not complete and there are at least two more elementary particles to be discovered. I think one of them is Planck Particle and it must be what Black Holes are made of. I think the other must be the particle of Dark Matter (could it be graviton?).

Based on the ideas above, I think the recent discovery of "hot gas" in DM clouds/filaments, must be because of DM creating a positive spacetime curvature, which means higher probabilities for positive energy/mass virtual particles of quantum vacuum. (So it is a similar phenomenon to Hawking Radiation.)

But why elementary quantum particles have quantum properties/abilities like entanglement? I think it could be because reality is created by a Cellular Automaton Quantum Computer (CAQC) with Planck scale cells. So, since elementary quantum particles of SM are the quasiparticles of this CAQC, they also have quantum properties, since they are clusters of qubit information processed by a (CA) QC.

If gravitational fields are fields of (positive) spacetime curvature, and spacetime is a medium created by virtual particles, then how objects would attract each other? Obviously, a vacuum region with higher probabilities for positive energy/mass virtual particles, must be like a low pressure gas region of spacetime medium. And a vacuum region with higher probabilities for negative energy/mass virtual particles, must be like a high pressure gas region of spacetime medium. (Imagine each particle with positive energy/mass, is a region of positive curvature (of the Planck-scale medium), so when they group together in clusters (objects with mass), then they create a macroscale positive curvature region, like a low pressure gas region of the gas-like spacetime medium.)

# FB36 Blog

## Wednesday, November 8, 2017

## Thursday, November 2, 2017

### The Table Of Elementary Quantum Particles

I think discovery of the Periodic Table (PT) of chemical elements, allowed accurate prediction of many new/unknown elements and their various properties. (If we are given, only atomic number and mass number of an element, can we accurately predict all its properties (nuclear, chemical, physical, electric, magnetic), using only Quantum Mechanics?) So the set of all chemical elements clearly have a basic (and standard) order (PT)! But there are also many known (and useful) alternative periodic tables (APT). (Isn't there any precise (and unique) mathematical/geometric object/structure/group/graph for the set of all chemical elements other than various table structures?) (And if so, then that object can explain all basic properties of all elements?) So we could say, the order of the set of all chemical elements is not really unique!

Do we really have any true equivalent of PT/APT for elementary quantum particles (of Standard Model)? I think the answer is really no! Because we could not found any clear order for energy/mass of elementary quantum particles, so far!

I think if there is truly no order (can we ever hope to prove that mathematically?), then it could be viewed as a sign of multiverse (or Intelligent Design?)! And if there is an order and its unique, then it could be viewed as a sign of natural inevitability of our reality/universe. My guess is, it will turn out similar to PT/APT situation of the set of all chemical elements (a non-unique order)!

What we can do to find it/them, if really exist?

I think as a first step, we should try to create a basic (and standard) table for elementary quantum particles. It needs to be sorted by particle (rest) energy (since we are trying to explain order of that primarily), and it surely needs to be simplified using Planck Units.

Here is a proposal for a basic (and standard) table of elementary quantum particles:

Column 0: Name/symbol of the elementary particle

Column 1: Compton Wavelength of the elementary particle in Planck Length Units

Column 2: Corresponding Compton Frequency of the elementary particle

Column 3: Is the elementary particle have rest mass?: Y/N

Column 4: Electric Charge (in Electron Charge units) (Or, is there a Planck unit for electric charge?)

Column 5: Spin

Column 6: Color Charge

(Table needs to be sorted (ascending/descending) by column 1 values, by default.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chemical_elements

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_number

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_number

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_periodic_tables

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

Do we really have any true equivalent of PT/APT for elementary quantum particles (of Standard Model)? I think the answer is really no! Because we could not found any clear order for energy/mass of elementary quantum particles, so far!

I think if there is truly no order (can we ever hope to prove that mathematically?), then it could be viewed as a sign of multiverse (or Intelligent Design?)! And if there is an order and its unique, then it could be viewed as a sign of natural inevitability of our reality/universe. My guess is, it will turn out similar to PT/APT situation of the set of all chemical elements (a non-unique order)!

What we can do to find it/them, if really exist?

I think as a first step, we should try to create a basic (and standard) table for elementary quantum particles. It needs to be sorted by particle (rest) energy (since we are trying to explain order of that primarily), and it surely needs to be simplified using Planck Units.

Here is a proposal for a basic (and standard) table of elementary quantum particles:

Column 0: Name/symbol of the elementary particle

Column 1: Compton Wavelength of the elementary particle in Planck Length Units

Column 2: Corresponding Compton Frequency of the elementary particle

Column 3: Is the elementary particle have rest mass?: Y/N

Column 4: Electric Charge (in Electron Charge units) (Or, is there a Planck unit for electric charge?)

Column 5: Spin

Column 6: Color Charge

(Table needs to be sorted (ascending/descending) by column 1 values, by default.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chemical_elements

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_number

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_number

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_periodic_tables

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

## Saturday, October 28, 2017

### Production Of Quantum Particles

How quantum particles maybe produced by our Universe?

Assume our reality is created by a CA QC operating at Planck Scale.

Assume it creates a Planck Scale Particle based fluid medium, just like LBM (CA) creates 2d/3d fluid simulation.

Assume, when that fluid medium starts boiling, it creates bubbles (which are its quasiparticles).

And since the cells of the CA QC are qubit (register(s)) based, those bubbles/quasiparticles have quantum properties.

So assume, our universal fluid medium, creates bubbles/quasiparticles (quantum particles),

as (positive/negative energy) virtual/real single/pair particle/antiparticle, depending on local conditions.

Assume, our perception of spacetime is created by virtual particles of quantum vacuum.

Assume, gravitational field is polarization of spacetime.

Assume, positive spacetime curvature is actually quantum vacuum producing more positive energy virtual particles than negative.

Assume, negative spacetime curvature is actually quantum vacuum producing more negative energy virtual particles than positive.

(So Casimir Force is actually creating artificial gravity/anti-gravity!)

And if the (positive/negative) curvature is beyond necessary threshold, then a real particle (pair) is produced, instead of a virtual particle (pair).

So we can say:

Amplitude of spacetime curvature decides virtual or real particle (pair) will be produced.

Sign of spacetime curvature decides positive/negative energy/mass particle (pair) will be produced.

Polarization/Rotation/Spin of spacetime curvature (?) decides particle and/or anti-particle will be produced.

Assume our reality is created by a CA QC operating at Planck Scale.

Assume it creates a Planck Scale Particle based fluid medium, just like LBM (CA) creates 2d/3d fluid simulation.

Assume, when that fluid medium starts boiling, it creates bubbles (which are its quasiparticles).

And since the cells of the CA QC are qubit (register(s)) based, those bubbles/quasiparticles have quantum properties.

So assume, our universal fluid medium, creates bubbles/quasiparticles (quantum particles),

as (positive/negative energy) virtual/real single/pair particle/antiparticle, depending on local conditions.

Assume, our perception of spacetime is created by virtual particles of quantum vacuum.

Assume, gravitational field is polarization of spacetime.

Assume, positive spacetime curvature is actually quantum vacuum producing more positive energy virtual particles than negative.

Assume, negative spacetime curvature is actually quantum vacuum producing more negative energy virtual particles than positive.

(So Casimir Force is actually creating artificial gravity/anti-gravity!)

And if the (positive/negative) curvature is beyond necessary threshold, then a real particle (pair) is produced, instead of a virtual particle (pair).

So we can say:

Amplitude of spacetime curvature decides virtual or real particle (pair) will be produced.

Sign of spacetime curvature decides positive/negative energy/mass particle (pair) will be produced.

Polarization/Rotation/Spin of spacetime curvature (?) decides particle and/or anti-particle will be produced.

### Matter And Dark Matter

Assume, in the beginning of The Big Bang, the Universe was a ball of positive energy, in the middle of a medium of negative energy.

Later it started absorbing negative energy and so started expanding.

As its positive energy density dropped below a threshold, DM particles got created near uniformly everywhere. As the Universe continued to expand, DM particles coalesced into filaments of the cosmic web.

The BB also created hydrogen and helium uniformly everywhere.

Later DM filaments provided guidance for matter, stars and galaxies to form. But we must realize this view leads to Baryon Asymmetry Problem!

What if, matter of our Universe got created thru a different mechanism, which is asymmetric?

If we look at our Universe, it looks like matter is coalesced in the central regions of DM filaments/clouds. What if matter is not coalesced, but got created in those central regions of DM clouds?

What if, whenever wherever DM cloud density goes above a certain threshold, particles of Standard Model are created, without their anti-particles? (And then later DM cloud density would drop below the threshold there, like a negative feedback mechanism. And if so that would mean total amount of DM in the Universe must be decreasing over time!)

And what if, DM particles are gravitons with extremely low mass/energy, and so with extremely large size (Compton Wavelength)?

So that maybe why we cannot detect them directly and why they cannot join with each other to create a BH etc. (There maybe a similar rule for them like Pauli Exclusion Principle?)

About Graviton from Wikipedia:

"The analysis of gravitational waves yielded a new upper bound on the mass of gravitons, if gravitons are massive at all. The graviton's Compton wavelength is at least 1.6×10^16 m, or about 1.6 light-years, corresponding to a graviton mass of no more than 7.7×10^-23 eV/c2.[17] This relation between wavelength and energy is calculated with the Planck-Einstein relation, the same formula which relates electromagnetic wavelength to photon energy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

Later it started absorbing negative energy and so started expanding.

As its positive energy density dropped below a threshold, DM particles got created near uniformly everywhere. As the Universe continued to expand, DM particles coalesced into filaments of the cosmic web.

The BB also created hydrogen and helium uniformly everywhere.

Later DM filaments provided guidance for matter, stars and galaxies to form. But we must realize this view leads to Baryon Asymmetry Problem!

What if, matter of our Universe got created thru a different mechanism, which is asymmetric?

If we look at our Universe, it looks like matter is coalesced in the central regions of DM filaments/clouds. What if matter is not coalesced, but got created in those central regions of DM clouds?

What if, whenever wherever DM cloud density goes above a certain threshold, particles of Standard Model are created, without their anti-particles? (And then later DM cloud density would drop below the threshold there, like a negative feedback mechanism. And if so that would mean total amount of DM in the Universe must be decreasing over time!)

And what if, DM particles are gravitons with extremely low mass/energy, and so with extremely large size (Compton Wavelength)?

So that maybe why we cannot detect them directly and why they cannot join with each other to create a BH etc. (There maybe a similar rule for them like Pauli Exclusion Principle?)

About Graviton from Wikipedia:

"The analysis of gravitational waves yielded a new upper bound on the mass of gravitons, if gravitons are massive at all. The graviton's Compton wavelength is at least 1.6×10^16 m, or about 1.6 light-years, corresponding to a graviton mass of no more than 7.7×10^-23 eV/c2.[17] This relation between wavelength and energy is calculated with the Planck-Einstein relation, the same formula which relates electromagnetic wavelength to photon energy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

## Tuesday, October 24, 2017

### Spacetime Curvature And Speed Of Light

What if Gravity is the 5th emergent dimension? (So mass/energy of a particle is its gravity dimension location (+ or -).

(2D surface of a sphere is bent in 3rd dimension. 4D spacetime is bent in the 5th (Gravity) dimension whenever (+ or -) energy/mass is present.)

When a positive spacetime curvature is present, speed of light must slowdown passing from that location. (Just like light slows down when it enters water from air and refracts.)

And if so, then how index of refraction and current speed of light can be calculated for any spacetime location?

Spacetime curvature (which we can calculate) determines deflection angle (which we can also calculate).

Using Snell's Law:

sin(t0)/sin(t1)=v0/v1=n1/n0

Also if c is the speed when there is no curvature.

And if we plug in the values we know/assume then this is what we have:

sin(t0)/sin(t1)=c/v1=n1/n0

We can calculate total bending (deflection) angle of light (in radians) in General Relativity:

deltaPhi=4*G*M/C^2/R (M:Mass in kg; R:Distance from center in meters; C:Speed of light in m/s; G:6.7E-11)

Assume incoming angle of light is 90 degrees (pi/2 radians) (for refraction index=1 because n=c/v and no spacetime curvature in the first medium):

=> 1/sin(t1)=c/v1=n1/1 =>

1/sin(deltaPhi)=c/v1=n1/1 =>

1/sin(4*G*M/c^2/r)=c/v1=n1/1 =>

n1=c/v1=1/sin(4*G*M/c^2/r) (Index of refraction for any spacetime location bending light)

(=> Possible extreme values:1/0=inf or -inf depending on direction of approach;1/1=1;1/-1=-1 => Range: -inf to +inf)

v1=c/n1=c*sin(4*G*M/c^2/r) (current speed of light for any spacetime location bending light)

(=> Possible extreme values:c*0=0;c*1=c;c*(-1)=-c => Range: -inf to +inf)

(Negative c would mean time is flowing backwards there!? c is the flow rate of time (event information flow (perception) rate) anywhere.)

(So it is not possible to make time move faster than c but it can be slowed and its direction maybe changed using negative energy/mass.)

(Light slows down in (positive) gravitational field because it is denser from light point of view. Imagine more positive energy/mass virtual particles on the way.

Gravitational field is actually local polarization of the virtual particle (each with + or - energy/mass) balance at any spacetime location.) If the total net energy is negative then curvature would be negative. Then index of refraction would also be negative.

(The speed of light anywhere is speed of information flow between the CA cells which determine perception of events in Relativity by any observer.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law

(2D surface of a sphere is bent in 3rd dimension. 4D spacetime is bent in the 5th (Gravity) dimension whenever (+ or -) energy/mass is present.)

When a positive spacetime curvature is present, speed of light must slowdown passing from that location. (Just like light slows down when it enters water from air and refracts.)

And if so, then how index of refraction and current speed of light can be calculated for any spacetime location?

Spacetime curvature (which we can calculate) determines deflection angle (which we can also calculate).

Using Snell's Law:

sin(t0)/sin(t1)=v0/v1=n1/n0

Also if c is the speed when there is no curvature.

And if we plug in the values we know/assume then this is what we have:

sin(t0)/sin(t1)=c/v1=n1/n0

We can calculate total bending (deflection) angle of light (in radians) in General Relativity:

deltaPhi=4*G*M/C^2/R (M:Mass in kg; R:Distance from center in meters; C:Speed of light in m/s; G:6.7E-11)

Assume incoming angle of light is 90 degrees (pi/2 radians) (for refraction index=1 because n=c/v and no spacetime curvature in the first medium):

=> 1/sin(t1)=c/v1=n1/1 =>

1/sin(deltaPhi)=c/v1=n1/1 =>

1/sin(4*G*M/c^2/r)=c/v1=n1/1 =>

n1=c/v1=1/sin(4*G*M/c^2/r) (Index of refraction for any spacetime location bending light)

(=> Possible extreme values:1/0=inf or -inf depending on direction of approach;1/1=1;1/-1=-1 => Range: -inf to +inf)

v1=c/n1=c*sin(4*G*M/c^2/r) (current speed of light for any spacetime location bending light)

(=> Possible extreme values:c*0=0;c*1=c;c*(-1)=-c => Range: -inf to +inf)

(Negative c would mean time is flowing backwards there!? c is the flow rate of time (event information flow (perception) rate) anywhere.)

(So it is not possible to make time move faster than c but it can be slowed and its direction maybe changed using negative energy/mass.)

(Light slows down in (positive) gravitational field because it is denser from light point of view. Imagine more positive energy/mass virtual particles on the way.

Gravitational field is actually local polarization of the virtual particle (each with + or - energy/mass) balance at any spacetime location.) If the total net energy is negative then curvature would be negative. Then index of refraction would also be negative.

(The speed of light anywhere is speed of information flow between the CA cells which determine perception of events in Relativity by any observer.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law

## Sunday, October 22, 2017

### Geometry of Our Universe 2

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/10/22/comments-of-the-week-final-edition/

Ethan wrote:

"From Frank on the curvature of the Universe: “What if Universe is surface of a 4d sphere where 3d surface (space) curved in the 4th dimension (time)?”"

"Well, there is curvature in the fourth dimension, but the laws of relativity tell you how the relationship between space and time occur. There’s no wiggle-room or free parameters in there. If you want the Universe to be the surface of a 4D sphere, you need an extra spatial dimension. There are many physics theories that consider exactly that scenario, and they are constrained but not ruled out."

Then what if I propose, gravitational field across the Universe is the fifth dimension (for the Universe to be the surface of a 4D sphere)? (And also think about why it seems gravity is the only fundamental force that effects all dimensions. Couldn't it be because gravity itself is a dimension, so it must be included together with other dimensions (of spacetime) in physics calculations.)

And why it is really important to know general shape/geometry of the Universe?

I think then we can really answer whether observable universe and global universe are the same or not, and if they are the same then we would also know that the Universe is finite in size. (And we could also calculate general curvature of the Universe for anytime, which would help cosmology greatly, no doubt.)

I am guessing currently known variations in CMB map of the Universe, match to the distribution of matter/energy in the observable Universe, only in a general (non-precise) way. I think, if the Universe is really the 3d (space) surface of a 4D sphere, curved in the 4th dimension (time), (with gravity as the 5th dimension), then, we could use CMB map of the Universe as CT scan data, and could calculate 3d/4d matter/energy distribution of the whole Universe from it. And then, if it matches (as a whole) to the matter/energy distribution of our real observational Universe, (which coming from other (non-CMB) observations/calculations), then we could know for sure, whether our observational and global Universes are identical or not. (If not, then by looking at the partial match, maybe we could still deduce how large really is our global Universe.)

Further speculation:

Let's start with, spacetime is 4D (3 space dimensions and a time dimension).

Gravitational curvature at any spacetime point must be a 4D value => 4 more dimensions for the Universe.

If electric field at any spacetime point is a 4D value => 4 more dimensions for the Universe.

If magnetic field at any spacetime point is a 4D value => 4 more dimensions for the Universe.

Then the Universe would have 4+4+4+4=16 dimensions total!

(Then the dimensions of the Universe could be 4 quaternions = 2 octonions = 1 sedenion.)

(But if electric and magnetic fields require 3d + 3d, then the dimensions of the Universe would be 4+4+3+3=14 dimensions!)

20171028:

If our Universe has 16 dimensions and if our reality is created by a CA QC at Planck Scale, then its cell neighborhood maybe like a tesseract or a double-cube (16 vertices). Or if our Universe has 14 dimensions and if our reality is created by a CA QC at Planck Scale, then its cell neighborhood maybe like a Cube-Octahedron Compound or Cube 2-Compound (14 vertices).

(20171104) What if Kaluza–Klein Theory (which unites Relativity and Electromagnetism, using a fifth dimension), is actually correct by taking gravitational field across the universe as the fifth (macro/micro) dimension? (Maybe compatibility with Relativity requires taking it as a macro, and QM requires taking it as a micro dimension? (Which would be fine!?))

(20171115) According to Newton Physics, speed of any object in the Universe always is:

|V|=(Vx^2+Vy^2+Vz^2)^(1/2) or V^2=Vx^2+Vy^2+Vz^2

But according to Special Theory of Relativity, it really is:

C^2=Vx^2+Vy^2+Vz^2+Vt^2 which also means Vt^2=C^2-Vx^2-Vy^2-Vz^2 and so |Vt|=(C^2-Vx^2-Vy^2-Vz^2)^(1/2)

So, if gravitational field across the Universe is actually its 5th (macro) dimension then:

C^2=Vx^2+Vy^2+Vz^2+Vt^2+Vw^2 which also means Vw^2=C^2-Vx^2-Vy^2-Vz^2-Vt^2 and so |Vw|=(C^2-Vx^2-Vy^2-Vz^2-Vt^2)^(1/2)

(Is this the equation to calculate spacetime curvature from 4D velocity in General Relativity?)

(Equivalence Principle says gravity is equivalent to acceleration => Calculate its derivative?)

Ethan wrote:

"From Frank on the curvature of the Universe: “What if Universe is surface of a 4d sphere where 3d surface (space) curved in the 4th dimension (time)?”"

"Well, there is curvature in the fourth dimension, but the laws of relativity tell you how the relationship between space and time occur. There’s no wiggle-room or free parameters in there. If you want the Universe to be the surface of a 4D sphere, you need an extra spatial dimension. There are many physics theories that consider exactly that scenario, and they are constrained but not ruled out."

Then what if I propose, gravitational field across the Universe is the fifth dimension (for the Universe to be the surface of a 4D sphere)? (And also think about why it seems gravity is the only fundamental force that effects all dimensions. Couldn't it be because gravity itself is a dimension, so it must be included together with other dimensions (of spacetime) in physics calculations.)

And why it is really important to know general shape/geometry of the Universe?

I think then we can really answer whether observable universe and global universe are the same or not, and if they are the same then we would also know that the Universe is finite in size. (And we could also calculate general curvature of the Universe for anytime, which would help cosmology greatly, no doubt.)

I am guessing currently known variations in CMB map of the Universe, match to the distribution of matter/energy in the observable Universe, only in a general (non-precise) way. I think, if the Universe is really the 3d (space) surface of a 4D sphere, curved in the 4th dimension (time), (with gravity as the 5th dimension), then, we could use CMB map of the Universe as CT scan data, and could calculate 3d/4d matter/energy distribution of the whole Universe from it. And then, if it matches (as a whole) to the matter/energy distribution of our real observational Universe, (which coming from other (non-CMB) observations/calculations), then we could know for sure, whether our observational and global Universes are identical or not. (If not, then by looking at the partial match, maybe we could still deduce how large really is our global Universe.)

Further speculation:

Let's start with, spacetime is 4D (3 space dimensions and a time dimension).

Gravitational curvature at any spacetime point must be a 4D value => 4 more dimensions for the Universe.

If electric field at any spacetime point is a 4D value => 4 more dimensions for the Universe.

If magnetic field at any spacetime point is a 4D value => 4 more dimensions for the Universe.

Then the Universe would have 4+4+4+4=16 dimensions total!

(Then the dimensions of the Universe could be 4 quaternions = 2 octonions = 1 sedenion.)

(But if electric and magnetic fields require 3d + 3d, then the dimensions of the Universe would be 4+4+3+3=14 dimensions!)

20171028:

If our Universe has 16 dimensions and if our reality is created by a CA QC at Planck Scale, then its cell neighborhood maybe like a tesseract or a double-cube (16 vertices). Or if our Universe has 14 dimensions and if our reality is created by a CA QC at Planck Scale, then its cell neighborhood maybe like a Cube-Octahedron Compound or Cube 2-Compound (14 vertices).

(20171104) What if Kaluza–Klein Theory (which unites Relativity and Electromagnetism, using a fifth dimension), is actually correct by taking gravitational field across the universe as the fifth (macro/micro) dimension? (Maybe compatibility with Relativity requires taking it as a macro, and QM requires taking it as a micro dimension? (Which would be fine!?))

(20171115) According to Newton Physics, speed of any object in the Universe always is:

|V|=(Vx^2+Vy^2+Vz^2)^(1/2) or V^2=Vx^2+Vy^2+Vz^2

But according to Special Theory of Relativity, it really is:

C^2=Vx^2+Vy^2+Vz^2+Vt^2 which also means Vt^2=C^2-Vx^2-Vy^2-Vz^2 and so |Vt|=(C^2-Vx^2-Vy^2-Vz^2)^(1/2)

So, if gravitational field across the Universe is actually its 5th (macro) dimension then:

C^2=Vx^2+Vy^2+Vz^2+Vt^2+Vw^2 which also means Vw^2=C^2-Vx^2-Vy^2-Vz^2-Vt^2 and so |Vw|=(C^2-Vx^2-Vy^2-Vz^2-Vt^2)^(1/2)

(Is this the equation to calculate spacetime curvature from 4D velocity in General Relativity?)

(Equivalence Principle says gravity is equivalent to acceleration => Calculate its derivative?)

## Saturday, October 21, 2017

### Explaining Masses of Elementary Quantum Particles

How we can explain masses of elementary quantum particles?

All elementary quantum particles have energy, some in the form of (rest) mass. Then (rest) mass value of each particle is just 0 or 1.

Then what really needs to be explained is energy distribution (order) of list of elementary quantum particles.

We already know energy of each particle is quantized (discrete) in a Planck unit. (Then energy of each elementary particle is an integer.) And Compton Wavelength of each particle can be seen as its energy/size.

Then what needs to be explained is this:

Imagine we made a (sorted) bar chart of energies of elementary quantum particles. Then, is there a clear order of how energy changes from lowest to highest?

Or what if we made a similar sorted bar chart of particle Compton Wavelengths?

Or what if we made a similar sorted bar chart of particle Compton Frequencies?

Realize that the problem we are trying to solve is a kind of curve fitting problem.

Also realize we are really treating the data as a time series here.

But how do we know really, if our data is a time series?

Also realize that, if we consider the case of sorted bar chart of particle Compton Frequencies, then what we really have is a frequency distribution (not a time series).

Wikipedia says: "The Fourier transform decomposes a function of time (a signal) into the frequencies that make it up"

Then what if, we apply Inverse Fourier Transform to the Compton frequency distribution of elementary quantum particles?

Would not, we get a time series that we could use for curve fitting?

(Also, would not be possible then, that curve we found, could allow us to predict, if there are any smaller or larger elementary particles which we did not discover yet?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve_fitting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_series

All elementary quantum particles have energy, some in the form of (rest) mass. Then (rest) mass value of each particle is just 0 or 1.

Then what really needs to be explained is energy distribution (order) of list of elementary quantum particles.

We already know energy of each particle is quantized (discrete) in a Planck unit. (Then energy of each elementary particle is an integer.) And Compton Wavelength of each particle can be seen as its energy/size.

Then what needs to be explained is this:

Imagine we made a (sorted) bar chart of energies of elementary quantum particles. Then, is there a clear order of how energy changes from lowest to highest?

Or what if we made a similar sorted bar chart of particle Compton Wavelengths?

Or what if we made a similar sorted bar chart of particle Compton Frequencies?

Realize that the problem we are trying to solve is a kind of curve fitting problem.

Also realize we are really treating the data as a time series here.

But how do we know really, if our data is a time series?

Also realize that, if we consider the case of sorted bar chart of particle Compton Frequencies, then what we really have is a frequency distribution (not a time series).

Wikipedia says: "The Fourier transform decomposes a function of time (a signal) into the frequencies that make it up"

Then what if, we apply Inverse Fourier Transform to the Compton frequency distribution of elementary quantum particles?

Would not, we get a time series that we could use for curve fitting?

(Also, would not be possible then, that curve we found, could allow us to predict, if there are any smaller or larger elementary particles which we did not discover yet?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve_fitting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_series

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)