Fractal Universe - 5D Space-Time: Frequency Of Cycles In Dimensional Scale

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 2018
101
4
Neural Network of the Universe
Woow! I was surprised, that something like mass/energy equivalence depends so much on different personal interpretations and causes such great disagreement among physicists. But if relation between thermal energy of a macroscopic object and it's rest mas is being discussed relatively rarely, then in case of relation between rest mass and mechanical compression, there's almost nothing on the internet - I've found only those couple sources, which seem to be consistent with my ideas:

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/180s7x/_/c8alk3s
Ok. I think that I can slowly start to discuss my idea of quantum gravity in a 5D fractal geometry of spacetime. The general idea, which I use from the beginning, is to represent mass/energy of a body as energy released to environment due to matter annihilation during a direct collision with itself at border velocity c. In practice it means, that we can visualise gravitational potential, as distribution of energy that will be released to environment during matter annihilation. The most important difference between my model and the generally accepted theory, is the idea, that gravity is the function of mass/energy density - and not only it's total amount. For example, according to science, there will be no difference between gravitational fields of a star, a nebula and a black hole, as long as their rest mass will be equal - in my model gravitational fields will be different for all 3 of them. Why? Because a direct collision between a nebula and a black hole of equal mass, won't result in total annihilation of matter - actually black hole would in this case pass through the nebula, like a lightsaber through butter (with almost no decrease of it's momentum)...

If I would have to express such interpretation of mass/energy equivalence as a mathematical formula, I would place the total potential energy of matter on one side of the equation, as an invariant and absolute value - since until we won't change the number of particles in a system, any change in it's potential/kinetic energy equivalence won't affect the total amount of energy released to environment during matter annihilation. On the other side of this equation, I would place the function of relativistic energy/mass equivalence, where all values (except c of course) are variable and relative. Relativistic mass/energy will differ for frames in relative motion, while relativistic inertial mass/energy will vary even if we won't change the amount of particles in a macroscopic system. I think, that the best way, to represent the relativstic mass/energy, is to use the relation between potential energy of inertial mass to it's kinetic energy - due to heating/cooling & compressing a macroscopic body, we're actually causing a "conversion" of it's definitive potential energy of inertial mass into kinetic energy associated with pressure and relative motion.

I've spent some time researching this subject and it seems, that once again I hit just the right spot. It turns out, that I'm not the only one, who was able to figure out something such obvious, like the idea, to treat macroscopic objects, as complex systems of multiple bodies or to notice the dependency between thermal energy of a macroscopic object and kinetic energy of particles in the system. There's however one main difference between me and actual physicists: I didn't base my ideas on the authority of professional physicists, but on the most simplistic logic and common sense - and maybe this is why, right now I'm already couple steps ahead of mainstream physics...

To use a practical example: let's compare system of 2+ bodies to a single body of equal mass... Let's say, that we have two shotgun shells with equal amount of black powder - one is loaded with a single spherical 100g lead bullet and in second one the same mass is divided among 100 spherical lead marbles 1g each . Question - which one should we use, to have a higher chance of penetrating a bulletproof vest?

What might make this exercise pretty difficult/confusing, is the fact, that according to basic laws of mass/energy conservation, momentum and kinetic energy of that system will be exactly the same for a group of particles and for a single point-like object, until there won't be no change in the total sum of rest mass in a system of bodies - I even went so far, to actually calculate it by myself to be sure


"Thus the total kinetic energy of the system is equal to the sum of the kinetic energy of a mass MM moving with the center of mass velocity plus the kinetic energy of motion of the individual particles relative to the center of mass."

But you don't need to be a genius of physics, to notice that in the statement above, something isn't quite right. Sure, it might work as an approximation in a theoretical sceario and it might even give a valid prediction in the case of interactions between solid & uniform compact objects - but when it comes to interactions between systems with diferent densities of mass/energy, such simplification of this problem, will lead us to completely unrealistic results. Here's a scenario, which will prove my point:

Let's take once again the same 2 shotgun shells, which I mentioned earlier and shoot a block of ballistic gel with both of them, then see, what's the depth of penetration for each projectile. My prediction is: a single 100g bullet will penetrate the ballistic gel much deeper, than a group of 100 * 1g lead marbles. I can bet 500$, that I'm right in my prediction - is any one interested? :)

I think as well, that I might just have the proper solution. What we need here, is a new variable property of a macroscopic system of bodies - I think, that it should be called as "density (distribution) of momentum in a system". Of course I've checked already, what uncle google can say about such exotic term and it turns out, that not much. I've found couple sources, but most of them didn't have too much to do with the concept, which I'm about to use here...


And I'm not sure about this one, as I only did a short overlook of this paper:

...But it seems, that it's actually more or less consistent, with the general idea of momentum density in a system of 2+ bodies, which I've represented on a simple image below:

dens.png

All of this is crucial for a model of gravity, in which processes, that are visible on the movie below, are actually a proper representation of gravitational attraction/expulsion:

Hahaha! Don't you consider it funny, that a model, which I called as "quantum gravity in a 5D fractal spacetime geometry", comes down to bottle caps floating in a bowl full of water...?
 
Last edited:
Oct 2017
642
330
Glasgow
Woow! I was surprised, that something like mass/energy equivalence depends so much on different personal interpretations and causes such great disagreement among physicists.
It doesn't. It causes disagreement with people on the internet because most of us (most likely) are not professional researchers applying ourselves to SR, so you have a bunch of people who have studied a physics degree 10/20/30 years ago trying to recall their lecture notes from memory or reading internet articles (some of which will be awful) trying to muddle through a topic instead of reading the high quality physics references.

I don't mean to put people down because there's some very smart people out there, but if you're trying to shape your research using online forums and articles, you're doing it wrong. Stick to the literature; journal papers, conference papers and textbooks and reference their work directly when you do yours.

The general idea, which I use from the beginning, is to represent mass/energy of a body as energy released to environment due to matter annihilation during a direct collision with itself at border velocity c.
This is very confusing. What does it mean for something to collide with itself? Why would it annihilate? How do you conserve quantum numbers in this scenario?

In practice it means, that we can visualise gravitational potential, as distribution of energy that will be released to environment during matter annihilation. The most important difference between my model and the generally accepted theory, is the idea, that gravity is the function of mass/energy density - and not only it's total amount.
It's not a totally weird concept, even in "generally accepted theory". In Newtonian gravity you have the formula

\(\displaystyle F = G\frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}\)

The denominator has distance squared. So, if you have a macroscopic system of masses, the gravitational forces between them all are different based on their distribution. Consequently, you'll get local effects when in close proximity to gravitating bodies (just like the ones we measure on Earth).

For example, according to science, there will be no difference between gravitational fields of a star, a nebula and a black hole, as long as their rest mass will be equal - in my model gravitational fields will be different for all 3 of them. Why? Because a direct collision between a nebula and a black hole of equal mass, won't result in total annihilation of matter - actually black hole would in this case pass through the nebula, like a lightsaber through butter (with almost no decrease of it's momentum)...
I don't think anyone thinks that collisions between celestial entities cause total annihilation of matter.

If I would have to express such interpretation of mass/energy equivalence as a mathematical formula, I would place the total potential energy of matter on one side of the equation, as an invariant and absolute value - since until we won't change the number of particles in a system, any change in it's potential/kinetic energy equivalence won't affect the total amount of energy released to environment during matter annihilation. On the other side of this equation, I would place the function of relativistic energy/mass equivalence, where all values (except c of course) are variable and relative. Relativistic mass/energy will differ for frames in relative motion, while relativistic inertial mass/energy will vary even if we won't change the amount of particles in a macroscopic system. I think, that the best way, to represent the relativstic mass/energy, is to use the relation between potential energy of inertial mass to it's kinetic energy - due to heating/cooling & compressing a macroscopic body, we're actually causing a "conversion" of it's definitive potential energy of inertial mass into kinetic energy associated with pressure and relative motion.
It's not clear to me what you're trying to say here.

What do you mean by "a change in its potential/kinetic energy equivalence"?

If you're describing a mathematical formula, why not just write it down? Do you know LaTeX? You can use it on this forum to write equations with nice typesetting.

I've spent some time researching this subject and it seems, that once again I hit just the right spot.
In other words, you like your own theory.

It turns out, that I'm not the only one, who was able to figure out something such obvious, like the idea, to treat macroscopic objects, as complex systems of multiple bodies or to notice the dependency between thermal energy of a macroscopic object and kinetic energy of particles in the system.
Oh please... these ideas are as old as calculus.

There's however one main difference between me and actual physicists: I didn't base my ideas on the authority of professional physicists, but on the most simplistic logic and common sense - and maybe this is why, right now I'm already couple steps ahead of mainstream physics...
If you really believe those things then you're completely delusional.
 

topsquark

Forum Staff
Apr 2008
3,049
648
On the dance floor, baby!
@GatheringKnowledge

benet13 has already pointed out a specific bunch of flaws, so I'll be more general.

Based on your statements It's pretty clear to me that your knowledge of GR and QM are sorely lacking. For example: Starting from the Einstein Field Equations, \(\displaystyle G_{ \mu \nu } = \dfrac{8G}{c^4} T_{ \mu \nu }\) derive the helicity of the graviton. This is the simplest combination of GR and QM that I know of.

Get off the internet and pick up a textbook or two.

Thread closed.

-Dan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.