Is Einstein's Space-Time A 'Get Out Of A Mechanism Free Card'?

[common_sense_seeker]

The acclaimed French cosmologist Luminet states in his latest 2008 book 'The Wraparound Universe':

"General Relativity deals with gravity. This no longer is described as a force acting at a distance, but as a local manifestation of the non-Euclidean geometry of space-time. Einstein chose in effect to eliminate the physical action for explaining gravity, paying a price which translated into a needed enrichment of the underlying geometry."

Luminet seems to forget that not only may it be a richer geometry, but that it also may be wrong. The price is also a setting in stone of Newton's oh-much-too-simple law of gravitation and the blocking of a mechanism based on radiated spinning helix particles.

Space-time is a theoretical entity with no basis in physical reality.

By contrast, particles are proven to exist. Therefore a particle mechanism for the gravity force is the required foundation of modern physics. Is the last 100 years an amazing case of 'groupthink'. When will it get the much needed overhaul?

 

[Dywyddyr]

on radiated spinning helix particles.

What "radiated spinning helix particles"?

By contrast, particles are proven to exist. Therefore a particle mechanism for the gravity force is the required foundation of modern physics.

Because particles are proven to exist gravity MUST be particle-based?
How do you work that out?
Interesting implications though: we know dogs exist therefore cows should have a canine-based explanation...

 

[DRZion]

It is ridiculous; however, if the math makes it work.. then it works!
Isn't the point of physics 'elegance'? It is hardly elegant to speak of a cow in terms of a dog.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It is ridiculous; however, if the math makes it work.. then it works!

That's a good idea, however I'd put money on there being no maths whatsoever behind this "idea".
It's nothing more than "I've had this thought (based on nothing) and you should all listen to me..."

Isn't the point of physics 'elegance'?

No, the point is explanation and "utility".
Even if the explanation is ugly we'll use it if it works.

It is hardly elegant to speak of a cow in terms of a dog.

QED.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The price is also a setting in stone of Newton's oh-much-too-simple law of gravitation and the blocking of a mechanism based on radiated spinning helix particles.

Just because you've made up some vague speculation about how the universe works doesn't mean you're right. Other than wildly waving your arms can you provide any rationale for your constant mentioning of spinning helices?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Just because you've made up some vague speculation about how the universe works doesn't mean you're right. Other than wildly waving your arms can you provide any rationale for your constant mentioning of spinning helices?

It's analgous to Hawking radiation and pair production of particle/antiparticles. I saw a TV documentary about it and the graphics were virtually identical to my proposal. The only difference is that the two opposing structures continue to grow in opposite directions without annihilating each other until the big bang, where they then crash into one another. (Asymmetry due to there being three axes means that not all matter is annihilated). It isn't rocket science, just simple geometry.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

It's analgous to Hawking radiation and pair production of particle/antiparticles.

Except that Hawking's work developed from the quantitative discovery that black hole mechanics can be case into the same framework as thermodynamics, followed by the derivation, from a quantitative model, of how that mechanism works. You've just watched a TV documentary graphic (which is almost never close to the real model, it's dumbed down to be understandable to the layman) and said "Oh, that's like my idea".

Can you demonstrate quantitatively it's 'analogous to Hawking radiation'?

It isn't rocket science, just simple geometry.

Funny, given you know neither geometry nor the quantum field theory description of Hawking radiation.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Just because you've made up some vague speculation about how the universe works doesn't mean you're right. Other than wildly waving your arms can you provide any rationale for your constant mentioning of spinning helices?

I forgot to mention that the spinning helix is the only structure that will allow a radiated particle to induce a force of attraction on another particle. Can you even begin to imagine what I'm talking about I wonder?

 

[Steve100]

I forgot to mention that the spinning helix is the only structure that will allow a radiated particle to induce a force of attraction on another particle. Can you even begin to imagine what I'm talking about I wonder?

Anyone can make up some bullshit and pretend they know what it's on about.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Anyone can make up some bullshit and pretend they know what it's on about.

It's the principle of Archimedes screw, you donut..

 

[Steve100]

It's the principle of Archimedes screw, you donut..

Of course it is...

 

[Dywyddyr]

It's the principle of Archimedes screw, you donut..

Or a propeller.
What keeps the helix in place to attract the particle, as opposed to moving itself?
What stops the particle "falling off" the helix?

I forgot to mention that the spinning helix is the only structure that will allow a radiated particle to induce a force of attraction on another particle

Would appear not to be the case.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I forgot to mention that the spinning helix is the only structure that will allow a radiated particle to induce a force of attraction on another particle. Can you even begin to imagine what I'm talking about I wonder?

Do you or do you not have any quantified justification for claiming such a thing?

If you'd studied quantum field theory you'd know its simple to write down a theory which involves particle attracting one another. Any scalar field theory for instance. So your claim is invalidated. That's why you shouldn't make such grand claims on topics you know nothing about.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Of course it is...

Are you able to extend your abstract mind to contemplate how this concept could be applied to a spinning particle to create an attraction force? (Or do you need the mathematical equation first?)

Or a propeller.
What keeps the helix in place to attract the particle, as opposed to moving itself?
What stops the particle "falling off" the helix?
Would appear not to be the case.

I should have said the simplest and most common sense structure then. The helix IS the particle. It's spin creates the wave part of it's particle/wave duality. The maintaining of this structure needs further investigation. I expect it's either a property of the simplest form of matter or that there is an even smaller particle than gravity which keeps the helix from disintegrating (i.e. a smaller fractal of gravity).

 

[Dywyddyr]

Are you able to extend your abstract mind to contemplate how this concept could be applied to a spinning particle to create an attraction force? (Or do you need the mathematical equation first?)

Please, show the equations.

I should have said the simplest and most common sense structure then. The helix IS the particle.

So what's it attracting?
And how?

It's spin creates the wave part of it's particle/wave duality.

Interesting.
How?

The maintaining of this structure needs further investigation. I expect it's either a property of the simplest form of matter or that there is an even smaller particle than gravity which keeps the helix from disintegrating (i.e. a smaller fractal of gravity).

You "suspect" that something you're personally thought up and that has supporting evidence is either a etc etc?
Right.
How are you going to "investigate">
Dream some more?

 

[James R]

I forgot to mention that the spinning helix is the only structure that will allow a radiated particle to induce a force of attraction on another particle. Can you even begin to imagine what I'm talking about I wonder?

Why should we have to do all the work imagining what you might be on about?

It's your idea. It's up to you to explain it clearly. Do you expect people to waste time on a half-baked, poorly-explained mish-mash?

 

[thinking]

“ Space-time is a theoretical entity with no basis in physical reality. ”

By contrast, particles are proven to exist. Therefore a particle mechanism for the gravity force is the required foundation of modern physics. Is the last 100 years an amazing case of 'groupthink'. When will it get the much needed overhaul?

yet space-time assumes that both space and time have a physical reality

neither do

space-time is really about the matter in space

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Why should we have to do all the work imagining what you might be on about?

It's your idea. It's up to you to explain it clearly. Do you expect people to waste time on a half-baked, poorly-explained mish-mash?

I'm not mathematically minded. I forget how long I've been thinking about these ideas and images; it's second nature for me now. Thanks to Steve100's nice piccy, the concept is easy to understand. If the helix shown above is now moving to the right, with the spin creating a force to the left, then this is a model of how radiating gravity can cause a force of attraction. A simple and elegant solution to quantum gravity, particle/wave duality and E=mc(sq) [assume the spin is at speed c and that lateral movement is also at speed c].

 

[AlphaNumeric]

A simple and elegant solution to quantum gravity, particle/wave duality and E=mc(sq) [assume the spin is at speed c and that lateral movement is also at speed c].

Drawing a vague picture is not 'a solution'. 70 years ago you could draw pictures which describe quantum gravity processes in exactly the same manner as other quantum forces are described, by Feynman diagrams involving gravitons.

The problem is not in providing vague conceptual explainations, we know how gravity should be behaving, in a vague qualitatively way, the problem is finding a valid, well defined, useable quantitative solution. The issue of quantum gravity is not one of concepts it's one of details.

By the way, you don't measure rates of rotation (aka spin) in units of velocity. So even your vague grasp is immediately flawed.

 

[quantum_wave]

Drawing a vague picture is not 'a solution'. 70 years ago you could draw pictures which describe quantum gravity processes in exactly the same manner as other quantum forces are described, by Feynman diagrams involving gravitons.

The problem is not in providing vague conceptual explainations, we know how gravity should be behaving, in a vague qualitatively way, the problem is finding a valid, well defined, useable quantitative solution. The issue of quantum gravity is not one of concepts it's one of details.

By the way, you don't measure rates of rotation (aka spin) in units of velocity. So even your vague grasp is immediately flawed.

The quest for quantification is not as old as the ability of the mind to form ideas. Quantification follows ideas.