Spin Foam Model

Nov 2014
16
0
I find it "spooky" that speed relativity and gravity relativity works for SR and GR. QFT is awesome in its own right but completely incapable of defining gravity even with the Higgs as it was initially described as the particle responsible for particles having mass, not as a "carrier" of the gravitational force as was "introduced" more recently along side the wave function which still can't be detected, being searched for in the form of gravitational waves. I have a unique perspective in which I believe "spin foam", in its infancy, has made a reference I have seen God knows where that said gravity was a direct result of spacetime itself, manifest in the spin foam models, and recently something came to "light" contemplating the theoretical realm of SR that may have been taken a bit skewed. What i mean by skewed is the "contraction" of spacetime, typical taken in the current accepted theory, as t and x being contracted. As for the spin foam models, that start with points connected by line segments, which in the 3D version form a tetrahedron:
http://physicshelpforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1243&stc=1&d=1416194095
This apparently can be "imagined" as a 4-dimensional object by visualizing a point in the center radiating to the points of the object which can be viewed as t represented as the line pointing behind you, as in the fact that you are always moving away from time in the 3-dimensions forward with z pointing up and x and y on the floor in front of you, y is left and x is right, as would naturally rotate to a graph on the wall with x-> and y proceeds up on the left with z coming off the wall towards you. When you imagine the effects motion of mass through spacetime as contraction of all 4 dimensions equally it also models the energy and mass transformations in a consistent manner transitioning to general relativity seamlessly. When this concept is applied to structures of mass and energy having equal supplemental contribution the realization of the stunningly simple set of blocks describing not only how physics interact, but WHY they just "happen" to behave the way they do. From atoms to stable molecules in plamsa to gas to liquid to solid everything falls into place!

What I need to figure out is a way to "transform" 4 dimensions in this model into 4 dimensions flat that can stack as 5 sided (bottom empty) AND "lie open" into interlocking sheets cascading along the time aspect in strings or branches. Wow maybe "string theory" has something to it?
 

Attachments

Last edited:

MBW

Apr 2008
668
23
Bedford, England
Sweet Clarity

A bit difficult to follow, by the time I got to the end of some of your sentences, I had forgotten what was at the beginning of the sentence...

However you seem to be talking about what might be called hyper-tetrahedrons
in other words the 4 dimensional equivalent of the familiar 3 dimensional solid.

You also mention space-time contraction being equal in all 4 dimensions,
by this are you are indicating an alternative to the Lorentz transformations?

Lastly you speculate about the possible 4 dimensional tessellation of the hyper-tetrahedron.

When presenting challenging ideas, it is important to take extra special care to express those ideas clearly.
 
Nov 2014
16
0
I'm still trying to work it out but it is an entirely new system. Our grids don't fit spacetime, so in order to model physics effectively we need to use something analogous to a 3D honeycomb. As should be obvious that means everything square has to go! Its like trying to talk to yourself in a new language.

While the downside means everything in nature must be completely reworked, the upside is you get a slew of "A-ha's!" as things start to make sense as to why they behave the way they do. This is in many facets of many branches of science, chemistry, biology, physics, etc. The list gets bigger everyday.

The key to remember here is that this new system will incorporate everything from quantum physics to black holes from the BB to the big crunch and scale perfectly. And lets face it, gravity "compresses" spacetime equally, why wouldn't velocity?
 
Nov 2014
3
0
in a similar vein...

I've had this dream all my life:

As an analogy, a spherical antenna floating in an endless void. I yell 'HEY!' and that antenna broadcasts that wave outward in all directions, in an ever expanding spherical wavefront. At that front, that skin of the sphere, is Now. In that skin of zero thickness from this perspective, all three of our dimensions exist. Every thing and non-thing in that 3space skin is expanding proportionally to each other, such that from inside that 3space skin, no changes in size are observable. Everything is essentially exploding in size. In this way, there is a relationship between time and gravity. As all things explode in size, the resulting acceleration is perceived as gravity. Time and size are also directly related.

Now obviously this is not really based in what the common thinking is, and also obviously, I don't even qualify as a hobbyist Physics enthusiast, but I would be very interested in hearing arguments as to why this could not be a possibility.
 
Last edited:

MBW

Apr 2008
668
23
Bedford, England
I rather like your image of the expanding universe as a 4 dimensional bubble with a three dimensional skin,
I'm not sure about any consequences or conclusions that might be drawn from this alternative perspective,
but it is certainly an intriguing idea to consider.