[Mechanical Gravity Theory] - A New Kind of Science: The NKS ForumA New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum
Pages:1
Mechanical Gravity Theory
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Mark Suppes
Mark Suppes © 2003
I propose that gravity is the macroscopic expression of the tendency for particles with mass to be net consumers of nodes, and empty space to be a net producer of nodes. This theory is an extension of the model of physics presented by Stephan Wolfram in A New Kind of Science.
According to Wolfram’s view of fundamental physics, the universe is made of a trivalent network of nodes and connections between nodes. These nodes correspond with the smallest possible unit of spatial measurement – the Planck length, about 10^-33 centimeter. In this model, distance is measured as the count of nodes along the shortest path between two objects. An object’s volume corresponds to the number of nodes that make up the object.
The evolution of the network is based on a set of simple replacement rules that have yet to be discovered. Each time the rules are applied, time has passed. It is important to note that the passage of time is discrete, corresponding to the Planck time of 10^-43 seconds.
In this model, a particle is a collection of nodes with features that persist as the network evolves. This persistence is why an electron remains an electron as time passes. Empty space refers to areas of the network that do not contain persistent structures identifiable as particles.
It is interesting to note that there is some ambiguity as to which nodes belong to a particle and which nodes belong to the empty space around the particle. As the network evolves, nodes that begin as part of empty space can find themselves as part of an elementary particle later on. The converse is also true, nodes that begin as part of a particle can become part of empty space.
Certain rules reduce the total number of nodes in the network when they are applied.
(see image attached at bottom of post)
When this rule is applied, exactly two nodes cease to exist.
Now imagine that this reducing rule tends to be applied more in massive particles than in empty space. This means that massive particles absorb more nodes from free space than they return back to free space. Thus the particle is essentially sucking in and consuming the space around it.
A particle’s consumption of nodes reduces the amount of empty space around the particle, producing the macroscopic force of attraction we perceive as gravity. As a massive particle pulls the fabric of space into itself, objects that exist in the fabric become closer to the massive particle. An object falling toward a mass does not "feel" acceleration because the object is not accelerating relative to its surrounding space. Instead, space itself is moving toward the particle.
There is a direct relationship between a particle’s likelihood to reduce node count and the particle’s mass.
This formulation of gravity does not require the existence of a force-carrying particle such as the graviton, which has so far eluded discovery.
The Expanding Universe
I predict that space is an overall producer of nodes. As nodes are added throughout empty space, the volume of the universe expands, and all particles are pushed apart from one another. This predicted expansion is consistent with the experimental observation that the universe is expanding.
By building expansion into the mechanism of space itself, there is no need to explain the expansion of the universe in terms of dark energy. Empty space produces more empty space, so as the amount of empty space increases, the rate of expansion increases as well. This matches the experimental observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
General Relativity
This theory can be made to explain the experimental outcomes predicted by General Relativity, such as the slowing of time near gravity sources. However, it requires rethinking the notion of time dilation accepted since the 1930s.
I propose that time is a constant, and that distance dilation produces the effects we have perceived as time dilation. At a point of high gravity, time is not slower, distance is longer. This misunderstanding of time dilation comes from the way we perceive the passage of time.
Let’s begin by reviewing the process of perceiving the passage of time. Broadly speaking, for us to perceive the passage of time, we depend on witnessing some perceptible change in our environment. This could be the everyday process of watching a clock’s second hand move forward, or a particle accelerator’s detection of a particle. Even the most fundamental observation of the passage of time is preceded by a large number of particle and virtual particle interactions. Consider the cesium atomic clock: this device requires a myriad of sub-atomic particles interacting to produce its macroscopic representation of time.
Now imagine that the average distance each particle had to travel before it interacted with the next particle in the system is increased. Assuming the particles are traveling at the same average rate, this increase in distance will cause the subatomic process to happen at a slower rate. According to Newtonian mechanics, this makes perfect sense –if you have further to travel at a constant rate, it takes longer to get there.
Why would particles at a point of high gravity have a greater distance to travel? Because gravity curves space-time, which in turn curves a particle’s trajectory. This means that a particle must take a more curvy and convoluted path between interactions. A place of high gravity has many obstacles that must be navigated before an interaction takes place.
The most extreme case of distance dilation is orbit. If all particles are locked in binary orbit, time has effectively stopped as far as we can perceive it. To some degree, this is the picture you would see at the center of a black hole, where it is predicted that time essentially stops due to the extremely high gravity.
Conclusion
I imagine that for Mechanical Gravity to be fully tested it first requires the discovery of Wolfram’s rule for the universe. Until then, smaller steps can be taken, such as looking for network update rules which produce convections toward non-accelerating vectors. Looking for the cosmological constant in a system’s growth rate could provide a good litmus test for a candidate rule for the universe.
Gravity may prove to be the ultimate strange attractor.
PDF Version:
http://www.twistet.com/ticktock/pdf...vity_theory.pdf
Posted by: Tony Smith
You suggested:(...) particles absorb more nodes from free space than they return back to free space.
and At a point of high gravity, time is not slower, distance is longer.
which makes a lot of sense based on where I've found myself while focused mainly on the source of expansion and the anomalous galaxy scale movements currently attributed to dark matter.
However I suspect there might be a problem with your idea that empty (...) space is an overall producer of nodes.
Observation suggests that the space between bound objects is not expanding, but rather that the overwhelming bulk of expansion is taking place in the voids in the foam at super cluster scale. Is it possible that what we really have is some "anti-gravity" configurations of nodes which produce more nodes with a bias to producing such nodes between them and the nearest of your "particle" configurations, causing the space producing configuations over time to move away from concentrations of particles? The anti-gravity configurations which are still escaping from galaxies and clusters might contribute to the anomalies at those scales, maybe compounded with whatever forms of dark matter really do exist.
Being thoroughly immersed in this kind of view of the physical universe tends to change the questions from those currently fashionable in cosmology. The default assumption of the Big Bang theory that the expansion is due to the initial impetus of the Big Bang suddenly stops making sense given the non preexistence of space itself. Just explaining conservation of linear momentum as an outcome of a Planck scale network becomes a major problem as there is precious little evidence of any comparable resilience within any of the simple systems we are able to simulate. Maybe your thoughts here might help us start on such questions.
Posted by: Schroedinger
Mark, this is Zubair. let me start by saying that I am not familiar with Wolfram's Theories, so I'll have to take a look at them before I can make a judgment on the larger thrust of your ideas. Let me offer some casual observations.
Your theory seems to be that massive objects "absorb" space between them, that this is what draws them together. Is this a continuous process? If a single massive body was placed in an otherwise empty universe (excluding of course zero point fuzziness), would it eventually absorb the entire universe?
Interestingly, some of your ideas a similar to concepts present in "loop quantum gravity," a theory based on a quantization of spacetime itself. It creates minimal volumes and areas on the plank scale. The theory is not very old but it has already had some success duplicating the thermodynamics of black holes and accounting for Hawking radiation. Again, though, I'll review the theories your work is based on.
One important point I want to make however, is that your understanding of relativistic concepts is a little flawed. The hardest thing to wrap your mind around in General Relativity (and indeed in the special case) is that what you see is what you get. First, distance is indeed longer, but the measure of time is light, which moves at the speed of information. That is to say, the universe communicates with itself through particles that move at a set speed c and always at this speed. If I perceive your time as dilating, it MUST be dilating, otherwise about fifty other important ideas, such as conservation of momentum and energy go flying out the window. and I don't think you're quite ready to get rid of conservation of momentum.
I apologize for that last paragraph not being as clear as I'd like. I can try again if you tell me what is confusing about it.
Posted by: Mark Suppes
To be honest, this idea popped into my head while reading an article on Loop Quantum Gravity in the Jan 2004 issue of Scientific American. I was shocked at the similarities between Loop Quantum Gravity and Wolfram's framework for physics. In fact, the illustration attached to this post is included in both publications.
As far as i can tell, Loop Quantum Gravity never actually identifies gravity's mechanism of action as the application of a rule that reduces node-count. Although is does the heavy lifting of providing a framework for such a notion.
If this idea holds up, it would be pretty exciting, as it would rather concretely identify the mechanism of gravity's action.
Regarding the question of continuity - The process would be discrete, as almost everything is in both Wolfram's model, and Loop Quantum Gravity. Each time the update rule is applied, patterns near the perimeter of massive particles would be replaced by patterns with fewer nodes. Since there is a relationship between node count and distance, there is also a relationship between node count and volume. Thus if node count is reduced, volume is also reduced.
Would a single massive body eventually consume the universe? Perhaps. But I am guessing that empty space tends to increase the number of nodes over time (corresponding to the expanding universe) - So in some sense, space makes more space, and gravity consumes space.
Posted by: Schroedinger
explain what you mean by nodes
Posted by: Schroedinger
Okay, can you derive basic Newtonian Gravitation from this? Forget Relativity, can you match predictions in classical situations?
Posted by: Mark Suppes
I think this theory matches the observations of classical Newtonian gravity quite well.
I am saying that particles with mass consumes the space around them, thus pulling in the surrounding space and any other particle that space contains.
This matches the observation that objects with mass get closer over time.
An object that is freely falling towards a source of gravity has the subjective experience of zero - gravity (assuming the object is a point). Mechanical Gravity Theory says that gravity pulls in space itself. Any object that exists within this fabric of empty space goes along for the ride, but does not feel it because it is not accelerating relative to it's surrounding space.
Gravity follow the inverse square law. The force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.
If you think of a particle consuming the space around it, the disturbance will be felt maximally close to the particle. The disturbance would be attenuated as you move further away from the particle. On average, I think you would see the familiar inverse square law emerge.
Nodes are pretty clearly defined by Wolfram in Chapter 9 of A New Kind of Science. Basically they can be thought of as nodes in graph theory.
Posted by: Schroedinger
Actually, I was thinking of getting a mathematical (or whatever)derivation that gets us to the idea that the attractive force is proportional to the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
The little I've picked up about Wolfram's ideas suggest he's not so big into the equations, but there must be some kind of predictive apparatus. My question is simply, given two masses at a known distance, based on your ideas can you calculate how long it should take for them to come into contact? Can you tell me their velocities at various times?
Posted by: MattBro
If I understand your node eating hypothesis correctly, it seems to predict that on a macroscopic scale the velocity will be proportional to the inverse square distance between masses instead of the acceleration being proportional to the inverse square distance, as predicted by Newton's law of gravitation.
Here is my oversimplification.
Assume we have constant masses and that in a quantum of time, dt, that we have a total of M * dt nodes consumed by a large mass. In addition I assume that the total number of nodes in a volume (say a sphere) is proportional to r^3 , say K*r^3. Thus our conservation of nodes equation is
K * (r + dr)^3 = K * r^3 - M * dt ,
where dr is the change in the radius of our volume after the nodes have been 'eaten' by the mass.
Ignoring terms like dr^2 and dr^3 we arrive at the equation
dr/dt = -M/(3*K*r^2) .
The solution to the classical Newton's equation is quite different (and more complex).
If we throw in your space expansion term, including the creation of nodes, one gets
K * (r + dr)^3 = K * r^3 + dt * (- M + E * r^3 ),
where I assume the number of nodes created is proportional (on average) to the volume of the region with proportionality constant E. This adds a linear term to the velocity which presumably would dominate once you were far enough away from the mass, yet it is still very different from the classical case.
dr/dt = -M/(3*K*r^2) + E * r / (3 * K)
I think you will be led to propose some kind of time variation in your node eating schedule to make it match, or perhaps even worse, you will have to propose a space time dimensionality that is different from 3, although I do not believe a constant dimensionality will suffice to match the solution to Newtons gravitational law.
Posted by: Schroedinger
Okay, I actually had to translate the equations onto a piece of paper, at which point it started looking pretty bad.
The most fundamental flaw in your thinking is that you have volume as a function of radius, which is normally true, but in a scenario where volume (and therefore radius) is being consumed, radius becomes a function of another variable, perhaps time. [instead of V(r), you have V(R(t)) ]
Even assuming you could use "dr", you're negative sign is in the wrong place.
I don't mean at all to bash. You took a shot at answering the question I asked and I appreciate that. I'm curious though, as to the level of mathematical education you have. Your casual disregard for dr^2 and dr^3 scares me.
Posted by: Todd Rowland
While Mark's idea is tempting, MattBro's conclusion is correct. Let me simplify MattBro's analysis for the scenario of central mass acting by deleting nodes.
Note first of all that the dimension is irrelevant. One can restrict to the path of a hypothetical particle, and thus to one dimension. This makes exact analysis easier, and meaningful experiments possible.
Imagine the discrete points of space are all evenly spaced on the real line. Each point is given a coordinate value on the real line. Distance is measured using the real line, which is roughly proportional to how many points lie between. Velocity and acceleration is measured using the distance of the real line.
Consider the central mass to be at x=0, and are test particle at the 100th node at x=1. At each step the central mass eats a node, so our test particle becomes the 99th after the first step, at x=.99, and so on: Length[#]/100&/@NestList[Rest, Array[pt,100],50] gives a constant speed.
Basically, here we are thinking of the nodes as sitting inside traditional space-time, which might not turn out to be the right thing. As one can see from the graphic, it seems that disappearing nodes only where there is mass is not realistic, no matter what choice is made to give the geometry. The main feature missing from Mark's idea is that gravity, in Newtonian physics, acts at a distance. Action in a discrete causal network picture has to be essentially local, and presumably gravity would have its long range effect by causing a chain of coincidences from the central mass to its target. Besides, one would expect a rewrite which caused node disappearance to play a role in many other things as well as gravity and motion.
Posted by: Tony Smith
I would not be too quick to give up on the general thrust of Mark's idea. It makes sense at too many levels.
Firstly we should not imagine that the dynamics of any underlying structure of nodes/vertices and links/edges is going to be selected for our ability to get our heads around it or to simulate it easily on our computers. (I can live with assuming that such as structure is a reasonable best guess as to the fundamental fabric of existence.)
It is clear that the number of nodes is increasing, currently at a rate proportional to something greater than t**2. While space is expanding, empty space is clearly not becoming significantly thinner with age. Whatever the "simple" mechanism is that supports that nett increase in "empty" space nodes could easily be masking localised elimination of nodes close to now very rarified matter.
Every time I look at the kind of node substitution diagram that Mark attached and which adorn NKS as well as other respectable publications, I am forced to wonder about our instinctive guess that any nodes and links might persist for more than microscopic time. Might not everything get simpler, except for our feeble brains, if the actual zero state process involves the continuous creation of all nodes and links. Certainly it seems ambitious to imagine that some propagation of node colour alone will manage to transport photons of all wavelengths at C in all directions, let alone a few of the other taken for granted features of the world in which we find ourselves.
It is also well known that Newtonian/relativistic gravity has only been validated to planetary scales and that there are sufficient discrepancies at larger scales to have generated the whole dark matter/energy industry. Something important is missing, but we cannot yet be confident that that something is just massive particles.
The good thing about being an unapologetic generalist is that you can speculate. Right now, the idea that mass is a measure of nett local consumption of nodes is starting to have some appeal. Yes, we also have to think how it might play out for other forces which keep giving broad hints that they might be more directly understood in terms of network topology.
Given that distance is likely to be a measure of nodal separation, as suggested in NKS, might not the local ongoing nett consumption of nodes produce just the observed curvature in the distance metric near massive objects? There is something inherently attractive in the idea that particles continuously consume empty space nodes at the same time as vastly more empty space nodes are created in the voids.
Posted by: Schroedinger
The conjecture that dark matter and dark energy somehow point to faults in relativity on a cosmological scale is an interesting interpretation.
The basic idea, as I am understanding it, is that space moves towards massive bodies. Other bodies get dragged(?) by moving space and so appear to be attracted to the massive body? What about acceleration then? If I drop an apple from the top of a tall building, why does it continue to accelerate (until terminal velocity)? Wouldn't every falling object be dragged at a constant rate? Otherwise, doesn't that suggest that the absorption of space nodes is increasing per unit time? Wouldn't this acceleration of absorption very quickly lead to silly infinities?
Posted by: Tony Smith
Consider spherical shells around the massive object at radius r1 and r2, r2 >> r1, with n nodes absorbed by massive object in time t.
If we are in a local region where the expansion of space can be neglected, that means that a nett n other nodes need to pass inwards through each shell in the same time, but the area of each shell is proportional to r**2, thus the rate of acceleration is proportional to r**-2.
This argument relies on conservation of linear momentum to ensure that it is the acceleration rather than the velocity which is proportional to r**-2, and explaining conservation of linear momentum in such a space of nodes and links might be a lot tougher than explaining gravitational acceleration given conservation of linear momentum.
Posted by: MattBro
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning Tony. Can you explain more explicitly how momentum constrains the nodes?
In my analysis all I was trying to do was to equate the shrinkage of space with the proposed consumption of nodes. If we assume that the number of nodes consumed per unit time is a constant, proportional to the mass, and if we assume that the number of nodes in space for any given volume is proportional to the cube of the radius, then my velocity equation should hold to first order.
I made the assumption here that the motion induced by gravity is the result of the fabric of space being pulled into the mass as it consumes nodes.
I am not trying to throw cold water on this theory per se, because I also find it intriguing. I just believe that to make it work it needs to be able to agree with the macroscopic Newtons law on planetary scales, since experimental evidence seems to verify this.
I do not propose abandoning the theory, I just want to fix it so that it matches the macroscopic case, and then see what the implications are. I think there are probably several approaches we can take to get this theory to match classical physics.
To make the math come out right, what has to happen is that mass has to consume momentum, or velocity, not spatial nodes (or distance). There are probably several frameworks we could propose to make this happen.
Here is just one idea, which is probably a bit closer to classical physics. If we allow each node to have some kind of discrete state variable (perhaps momentum or mass and velocity etc.), then the effect of nearby mass is to consume momentum / velocity quanta from neighboring nodes. The velocity quanta consumed would be any that point away from the neighboring mass.
The current state of a node would determine a particle's motion if a particle were currently occupying the node. This idea could be made quite precise if we used Feynman's least action formulation of Quantum mechanics. A particle in one node would transition to a neighboring node based on a density that is determined by a least action principle, computed in theory from the state variable of neighboring nodes. Perhaps all that is required is a simple deterministic rule for the state transition in these models I don't know.
Posted by: Tony Smith
Matt, for me, in the light of NKS, conservation of linear momentum becomes a hard problem. But it also an undisputable fact and thus constrains any model of the universe. So I'll try again to expound my very tentative thoughts here, using different wording.
If nodes are being consumed proportional to mass, m, in line with Mark's original suggestion, that basically means that the movement of the very fabric of space at radius, r, towards the mass will be proportional to m* r ** -2.
This on its own cannot be easily seen to cause acceleration proportional to m* r ** -2, at least not until we take into account the fact of conservation of linear momentum, but when I think about that mostly unremarked fact I get a mental picture of the relationship between the fabric of space and the massive bodies within that space (which are presumably specific topological arrangements of nodes and links) which I can't (yet?) put into words.
That picture suggests to me that given that we have conservation of linear momentum ... the existence of which in a universe of nodes and links I cannot explain save for its observation as a fact ... that however the nature of the coupling of space and matter facilitates that observed fact, that coupling would similarly facilitate nett movement in the fabric of space causing matter in that space to accelerate proportionately.
I'm coming at this with an expectation that the only property nodes have is the topology of their links to other nodes and that all other properties are macroscopic relative to the basic substrate of nodes and links. I also don't expect that will turn out to be exactly true, but think it is a safer conceptual starting point than introducing almost arbitrary properties and especially metrics at the node level.
Posted by: Mark Suppes
Originally posted by Tony Smith
I'm coming at this with an expectation that the only property nodes have is the topology of their links to other nodes and that all other properties are macroscopic relative to the basic substrate of nodes and links.
Good point Tony. It is important to keep in mind that the only information a node has, or can have, is it's connections to other nodes.
It might not even make sense to talk about a given node persisting over time. It might make more sense to talk about relationships between nodes persisting. More specifically, I think we will see patterns that cyclicly appear throughout time and space.
I imagine that this ambiguity will come into play when talking about the Pauli exclusion principle and identical particles.
Posted by: MattBro
Tony,
I agree that simple is best. In fact that is supposed to be mathematically precise in some way in that the most computationally simple rule that fits the facts is the one we should pick.
So let me try to clarify the rules you wish to impose on the system.
1) Quasi - memoryless nodes. No state information is held in a node other than it's topological interconnect and possibly a pointer to a particle if there should actually be a particle present.
( If all the zero point field concepts hold, we know in fact a lot of strange stuff may actually happen at a supposedly empty node, but for this application we can certainly ignore this.)
2) The particle contains all the state info, mass, velocity etc. It is this information that dictates it's world-line or trajectory through space.
3) A particles state, in particular it's total energy (including it's mass) is allowed to locally change the topology of nearby nodes (e.g. to consume them). This process may or may not be memoryless, i.e. the number of nodes the particle ate last time interval may effect it's behavior the current time interval. (It's not clear to me you can get this to work without a memory component for the number of nodes a particle has eaten) I suppose you can think of the particle having indigestion due to the nodes it ate last time interval.
4) The particles motion must satisfy, locally the (discretized) Hamiltonian equations (least action) in a way that is independent of position. That is we do not allow the Lagrangian to be a function of the position in space, or node number for our discrete model. This is required in order to enforce conservation of momentum. For our model we do not allow for example a potential energy function that is a function of position.
Here is an assumption that I'm adding, which I presume you would not disagree to.
5) Any CA rule chosen to model gravity should approximate conventional gravity physics at the macroscopic scale.
It's been a while since I've looked at general relativity, but I suppose that one of the underlying assumptions is that momentum is conserved and it is only the curvature of space-time that causes the particles motion. This is ironic in that the most obvious fix to me was to allow momentum to be eaten by mass, but this obviously violates conservation of momentum (assumption 4).
I think I will accept this, in the hopes that this model might actually approximate general relativity at the macroscopic scale. Unfortunately, however, general relativity requires a non-Euclidean manifold over space and time. What does this mean for cellular automata?
I think it means non uniform time intervals. In fact since time is strictly local, I think it means every node has it's own local time schedule. But this ends up violating assumption 1. That is we end up thinking about a local state variable at each node that represents it's view of time. Any thoughts about this? Should we relax assumption 1 to include local time? I must say it's not obvious how to proceed since we obviously should be working with discrete time quanta as well. Perhaps mass will have to eat space and excrete time quanta to make this work.
Give me a little time and I can probably write up a more clear math derivation, in pdf format, as to why the most naive space eating model violates assumption (5).
Posted by: Tony Smith
Matt, your assumption 2 runs directly counter to the position that I, and I suspect Mark, are trying to explore:The particle contains all the state info, mass, velocity etc. It is this information that dictates it's world-line or trajectory through space.
To start with, it is important to realise that the Planck length where nodes are purported to be is of order 10**-20 the diameter of a proton.
The "state info" you talk about is seen as an, effectively macro scale, emergent property of a vast collection of nodes. Nodes themselves may have no persistence, but rather exist only for a moment of Planck time (10**-43) sec, with all the detail we see in the universe being a product of the topology of persistent interconnections between mostly cyclically repeated local configurations. (Some of my own work has convinced me that cyclically repeated local configurations are likely to quickly come to dominate from any set of initial conditions.)
Likewise, the (effective aggregate?) direction of any concentrations of matter will be communicated through network topology.
Secondly, the cosmological system we are talking about is certainly not a CA, Wolfram's PCE notwithstanding. CAs are convenient toy systems that we use because they fit a lot more comfortably with the biases inherent in human perception (and simple computer models) than do comparably simple processes operating on a network of nodes and links that we expect is a lot closer to reality. CAs also assume Euclidean geometry which we would like to get as a consequence from something simpler. (The jury is still out on time itself in this regard.)
While it is something I have not kept across to the same extent as other areas, I understand that we have persuasive evidence that the very fabric of space itself catches some of the rotation in the vicinity of massive rotating objects. Certainly magnetic fields do. For this to make sense you need to keep in mind that ordinary stars and even rocky planets are mostly empty space at the Planck scale. Matter only really comes to dominate inside neutron stars.
Posted by: MattBro
I'd have to say your response has intrigued me, although in my mind left things a little vague.
NKS makes much hay about the limitations of mathematics as the best descriptive language for physical phenomenon. Nevertheless, in my mind, both mathematics and CA are just tools, nothing more. I would not expect any model, no matter how clever, to be the exact framework implemented by the Creator. These tools are (hopefully) useful approximations for us, not some kind of religious or even philisophical dogma. In fact when one tool doesn't work for me in one situation I discard it, and use another tool in another situation as needed. (e.g. Quantum mechanics for microscopic phenomenon, general relativity for macroscopic.)
Nevertheless if we propose a model, we at least should propose one, however flawed, that is,
1) Implementable, i.e. it is amenable to either simulation or analysis, and won't require us to wait for an eternity before we get an answer
2) Predictive: The model should accurately predict the effects of the system (gravity) in known situations.
We have a conundrum here to some extent in that we wish to model a macroscopic phenomenon, gravity, using a microscopic model. In my mind if we wish to make this exercise more than just a philosophical discussion, we should at least produce one or perhaps several models that can be simulated to reproduce as a first step some classical results, e.g. elliptical orbits, inverse squared force law, etc.
Can you (Tony) or Mark clarify, at least at a high level what you want the basic features of the model to consist of?
From what you are describing, it appears that the only elements of the model are nodes and their interconnections to other nodes. The state at any discrete time is determined by this? Thus the only dynamics available to the model are the creation and destruction of nodes, or possibly a change in network topology (which you say is not needed)
Although this is in theory sufficient to encode any particular structure you would care to discuss, the encoding, even at a superficial level is not at all obvious.
For example can you answer the following questions?
1) Given a network, which I presume is modeled as some kind of undirected graph, how do I know if some collection of sub-nodes represents a particle ?
2) How can I assign basic metrics to subsets of the configuration, such as position, velocity etc., even at an approximate level?
How can I tell the difference between empty space and a 'particle'? At the beginning of the thread there was some talk of empty space being fundamentally different than a particle in that empty space would be a node generator and a particle, with mass, would be a node consumer. What actually is the purpose of the node interconnects if they don't somehow convey the topology of space?
Much of the older CA work that I have seen that attempts to model physical phenomenon has a fairly straightforward physical interpretation, eg. space is divided into a grid and the grid nodes contain particles. The PDEs that govern the system are then turned into discrete difference equations etc. I would very much like to understand how you see your model working.
Posted by: Mark Suppes
An off-the-shelf model that could serve as a starting point is fluid dynamics - Imagine a swimming pool filled with water and a idealized spherical pump in the middle. You could track the path of selected particles, and study the aggregate behavior of the system of water relative to the pump in the center. If taken literally, this model introduces the intriguing possibility of turbulence in plank length gravity (something allowed and even encouraged in quantum mechanics). Does this model produce inverse square behavior?
This would be an interesting start, but it wouldn't satisfy me.
The next best thing would be to find arbitrary problem spaces with sets of rules which produce strange attractors across the dimension of time. The Lorenz attractor is an example of a system in this vein.
Then you want to find systems that meet the above condition and have a topology of roughly three-demential space. If we could study a system like this, it think it would provide important way-markers.
Ultimately, this discussion leads to search for the Wolfram Rules in earnest. I would be interested to start a thread exploring the size of problem space necessary to find the Wolfram Rules for the universe.
Gravity is the ultimate strange attractor.
Posted by: Mark Suppes
I suspect that the cosmological constant is the best litmus test for a candidate Wolfram Rule Set.
The Wolfram Rule Set is the set of network rewrite rules that produce a universe similar to our own. A candidate Wolfram Rule is an untested set of rewrite rules. Testing determines whether or not a candidate rule is the Wolfram Rule.
As outlined by Wolfram, testing involves running the rule and then determining if it produces behaviors like our own universe.
I propose that the best litmus test is to look for the cosmological constant in the candidate rule's growth rate. It is easy to calculate. You simply have to sample the growth rate to see if it is 10^-36 sec^-2.
It is not inconceivable that eventually we could find a rule, or perhaps many rules whose growth accelerates at 10^-36 sec^-2.
It is unlikely that we will have found the Wolfram Rule Set just because a candidate rule set expands at the the cosmological constant. But it is a quick way to weed out rules that definitely not worth looking at further.
Posted by: Jason Cawley
Presumably distance, mass, and gravity will all be aggregate properties read off the network, not primitives of it.
Distance as we perceive it will not be one to one with spatial location in a graph. Because that gives no law of inertia, vector conserved velocities, or Lorentz invariance. Distance as we perceive it will be a function of a more primitive notion of distance in the graph, and perhaps other things in addition. (Note for instance that natural measures of distance may include time - light-jiffies or what have you).
In GR, matter is directly related to space. So let's think a bit about what mass might be in a network. It is not going to be some labeled thing moving around from node to node - that is just the ordinary point-set analysis picture made discrete.
Imagine instead mass measures the number of connections. Then consider a ball in the network and ask, what is the mass contained within this ball? If the network is sparsely connected, as the total distance (imagine for simplicity that is, the shortest path through the network from A to B - eventually it may be more complicated than that, but suppose that will depend on how time comes in or something similar) across the ball goes up, the number of connections will also go up but only very slowly. If on the other hand it is a tangled mess (locally), then the number of connections rises rapidly without the total distance rising much.
Now, imagine the rewrite rules allow node creation, but only where the existing graph is very sparse. Then areas of "empty" space will "expand", as net new nodes appear, lengthening the number of steps in the path between something say on the right and something on the left of the newly inserted node. Cosmological expansion. Also, isotropy selected for, in the sense that flat sparse graphs expand.
Now, imagine the rewrite rules also reduce the number of nodes where there are many tangled connections - perhaps there are "simplifying" rewrites that eliminate nodes already strongly connected all to the same other nodes. Then the net number of nodes inside a particularly tangled ball will decrease with time. Since distance is tracked by shortest number of nodes tranversed to get from A to Z, eliminating M somewhere between means the tangled ball is contracting.
Ok, but then how are stable particles possible? The proton is locally massive, and stable to enourmous time scales. Well, perhaps it is a tangled configuration in which two (or more) competing rewrite rules, one of the first type and one of the second, insert and delete nodes in a stable periodic fashion.
How does conservation of mass come about? Well, suppose the rewrite rules conserve the number of connections. If they are conserved locally (in our macro sense - within one particle as we see things today) we interprete the result as mass. When connections are "net exported" we see an energy that eventually disturbs more distant tangles.
What about entropy relations? Tangled counts as more ordered. If the rewrite rules have a tendency to flatten things out, then energy tends to expand, and it takes net connection export to flatter areas to increase (or sometimes perhaps to maintain) order in already tangled ones.
The point of the suggestion is to get people to realize that what mass is, what causes it, is "in play" here. It is something to explain, part of the puzzle, not an unexplainable, unknown primitive that the model takes as a given. I hope it is useful.
Posted by: Tony Smith
imagine the rewrite rules allow node creation, but only where the existing graph is very sparse. Then areas of "empty" space will "expand", as net new nodes appear, lengthening the number of steps in the path between something say on the right and something on the left of the newly inserted node. Cosmological expansion. Also, isotropy selected for, in the sense that flat sparse graphs expand.
I would like the same mechanism to also account for inflation, so I'm leaning towards there being some special configuation of nodes, maybe even one with a deficit of links, which is a nett generator of both new nodes and, at a presumably slower rate, new copies of itself amongst those new nodes, and which also cyclically regenerates itself ever further away from tangled space. (I have some, unfinished as always, 2002 notes which I headed "A New Kind of Gravity" in which I try to understand how sucking just a few such expanders into a black hole could cause it to rebound as a new big bang.)imagine the rewrite rules also reduce the number of nodes where there are many tangled connections - perhaps there are "simplifying" rewrites that eliminate nodes already strongly connected all to the same other nodes. Then the net number of nodes inside a particularly tangled ball will decrease with time. Since distance is tracked by shortest number of nodes tranversed to get from A to Z, eliminating M somewhere between means the tangled ball is contracting.
Ok, but then how are stable particles possible? The proton is locally massive, and stable to enourmous time scales. Well, perhaps it is a tangled configuration in which two (or more) competing rewrite rules, one of the first type and one of the second, insert and delete nodes in a stable periodic fashion.
My reading of Mark's original suggestion which started this thread is that, because the tangled configuration that is a proton needs to be cyclically stable, that the decrease in the number of nodes inside will be balanced by the number sucked from surrounding space, and that it is that sucking from surrounding space, rather than the number of links, which is measured by gravitational mass.The point of the suggestion is to get people to realize that what mass is, what causes it, is "in play" here. It is something to explain, part of the puzzle, not an unexplainable, unknown primitive that the model takes as a given.
Exactly!
Posted by: DaveHayden
I've been thinking the same basic theory for a few months (that mass absorbs space). I have what I think is a very compelling argument for it. I can also explain acceleration. Here goes.
Consider the problem of gravitational mass vs. inertial mass. Gravitational mass is that property of an object that determines how heavy it is - how much gravity it feels. Inertial mass is the resistance that the object puts up when pushed. These two values are identical, but why should they be? Inertia and gravity seem to be very separate concepts. Inertia shouldn't be the same as gravity any more than it should be the same as electric charge. In other words, why don't objects put up resistance to being pushed that's equivalent to their charge? That seems nonsensical to us, but then why isn't inertia = gravity also nonsense?
After pondering this for a while, I came up with a very simple postulation:
Gavity and inertia *feel* the same because they *are* the same.
That would certainly make things easier. Okay, so if they really *are* the same, then what the heck is going on as I sit here in my chair and feel the weight of my body. I must be feeling nertia, which means *I must be accelerating through space.*
Okay. Suppose I'm accelerating while sitting here. It sure doesn't look that way. After all, I don't seem to be accelerating upward through space. Well, if *I* am not accelerating *upward* though space, then it must be that *space* is accelerating *downward* through me. In other words, as I sit here, planet earth is steadly chomping away at the space underneath me. The only way I appear to stay still in relationship to the galaxy is that I'm accelerating up to counteract the effect, pushed up by the surface of the planet, which is pushed up by the ground under it, etc.
Let's look at this in more detail.
Consider an object in free fall at the surface. Here's what's happening. In 1 second, planet earth eats up soem volume of space. The space around it moves in to fill the void, and it brings whatever mass or energy happens to be with it along. At the surface of the planet, the space moves down 9.8m/s. This causes an object to get 9.8m closer to the center. The object falls....
Now here's where we can explain acceleration. At t=0, suppose the object is at height h=0. At t=1, it has moved closer to the center of the planet. To someone standing on the planet, the object now appears to be moving at 9.8m/s. In the next second, the earth eats 9.8m more. But now the effect is on a moving object and so the object's speed increases another 9.8m/s.
Mathematically, in time delta-t (dt), the space between the object and the center of the earth shrinks by 9.8dt meters, increasing it's velocity by 9.8dt/dt =9.8 meters/s. This is exactly what gravity does.
The effect of gravity is proportional to the inverse square of the distance because the volume of the shell that falls to earth is constant. The farther your get from the object, the less the shell thickness. The volume of space absorbed in one second is V. At a distance r from the center, that volume represents a shell with surface area 4*pi*r^2 and thickness. The volume of the shell is the surface area times thckness, so we have V = 4*pi*r^2 *t, or t = V / (4*pi*r^2). So the thickness of the shell, the amount of space that gets absorbed, is proportional to the inverse square of the radius.
So if mass absorbs space, then where does the space go? It would have to go somewhere and it's not as though the universe is getting any bigger.... Hmm, come to think of it, the universe *is* getting bigger. So I think it's possible that it works like this, in a nutshell:
Objects absorb space around themsepves at a constant rate proportional to their mass. They then eject the space uniformly throughout the universe.
Okay, I'll admit that the issue of where the space goes is a little harder to justify. A much easier explanation goes like this:
Einstein showed that space and time are the same. Obviously the universe is getting older. So if the universe's time is increasing, then its space must be increasing also.
Posted by: Mark Suppes
Awesome explanation Dave. The mental picture of space rushing through us as we stand on earth is perfect.
Posted by: Philip Ronald Dutton
I have no clue about physics theories but from what I just read here, it sounds like space could sort of be thought of as a fluid?
Space is "rushing in and out and trying to fill voids, etc."? Fluid thoughts bring to mind pressure which may not be out there in the vacuum (therefore now thinking in terms of cellular automata or "spatial" automata or whatever).
(note to self: don't reply to posts for which I have no formal training.)
Posted by: Tony Smith
Welcome to the club, Dave, and thanks for keeping the pot boiling here.
Having been pondering on this more than I should since Mark first floated the idea here, I think the simplest formulation is to not worry about where the infalling space goes after it is eaten. That is just what mass (matter) does. Somewhere mostly out in the voids, new space is being produced by some other mechanism (think "dark energy") much faster than matter is eating it and, Philip, empty space really might flow from souce to sink, very much like an ideal liquid.
If there is a tricky bit, it is turning the effective inflow velocity of space into proportionate acceleration and gravitational red shift. Yet we do have some evidence that this might be just what space does through the very nature of its coupling with matter and energy.
I've been playing with a simple, promising graph/network model where a new set of nodes and links get generated every tick of the fundamental (Planck?) clock. That model makes it clear that space itself appearing and disappearing according to local conditions may not be so unreasonable, so I really should try to post some details in a separate thread.
Posted by: Philip Ronald Dutton
can any sketches be provided which visualize some of the key points in this thread of discussion?
Posted by: bobroude
Mark, I like your thoughts on the mechanics of gravity. You are not alone in this type of thinking. See http://home.earthlink.net/~hhlindne...ace/Physics.htm also http://www.gravityresearch.org/
I have been thinking along this line for some time now and would like to submit to this forum my conclusions so far. This work has a long way to go but in some ways it may open doors to a new approach to understanding gravity.
MASS, ENERGY, GRAVITY AND SPACETIME RELATIONSHIPS
Robert Roudebush 01-20-04
Briefly I will attempt to explain my understanding of the connection between mass, energy and gravity and how this relationship leads to a dynamic, expanding and slightly massive gravity space with some thoughts as to the mechanics of gravity. The following is simplified with no acceleration. We are looking mostly at a single rest mass particle. It gets very complicated with GR and also very interesting but I am working on it.
MASS
All massive particles exhibit quantum states of uncertainty. I feel this is because the particle oscillates in and out of our observable existence, but it does not leave our dimension of existence. Instead, it exchanges with a partner or partners of equal energy during a phase transition. These partners need not have the same identity, but must have equal energy. The identity is remanifested when it exchanges energies. Also all particles manifest fields of space, energy and gravity. The location of the hidden partner’s space-relationship is a possible key to gravity and space. Also the frequency of oscillations to space-time creates multiple states of matter due to frequency exceeding field collapse speed.
GRAVITY SPACE
Let's say gravity manifests from mass oscillations as a field like an electron and forms a large shell comprised of many small pieces. Multiply mass times the speed of light squared and this is possibly the number of individual gravity space units manifest by mass at rest with each oscillation. These are formed into a sphere with the mass at dead center. Only the sphere surface is manifest and the area of the gravity space unit's is dynamic. I feel the gravity fields must collapse inward toward the mass like a collapsing bubble. The sphere volume inflates almost instantly out at the fringe of gravity field, like spooky action at a distance, and then collapses back to the mass at C. The total energy of field remains the same as it collapses into smaller space units.
When the collapsing individual space units making up the sphere shrink to possibly sub Planck area cubed the sphere surface becomes a horizon or max gravity and vanishes from Euclidian geometry to reappear again instantly out at the fringe of gravity field. The minimum field diameter is equal to the number of units of sub Plank gravity space cubes forming a sphere and is the point where the wave converts and re-inflates space at the gravity field fringe. The re-inflation occurs in a spaceless dimension so expansion in time is not necessary. The full size of field manifest at the fringe and area of unit is still a mystery to me but it seems to be related to the reach of gravity’s attraction. Perhaps an exact measurement of the distance between galaxies when they start to repel away from each other could yield an answer to this.
The convergence of different collapsing gravity fields may act upon the space between the masses forcing attraction, and or possibly voiding the space between masses. Or possibly some property of the ZPF of the gravity space moving to the larger mass acts upon lesser massive objects by accelerating them into the larger mass. Does the ZPF contain a Graviton like particle having energy and momentum?
With each oscillation of the mass particle a new dynamic gravity space field is generated and this fills the volume of the sphere with slightly massive and energetic space in dynamic collapsing units that still has the angular and inertial momentum of the host mass. All space as we know it is manifest from mass and energy and there is no empty space without a gravity field.
Is this gravity space field empty? I feel it may be responsible for the Quantum
Vacuum Energy. If so then there is a direct connection between the gravity space field, vacuum energy and mass particles. The masses partners could make up the field of Quantum Vacuum space and gravity. Without a gravity field there is no space field. From this it seems space is dynamic, always moving to mass and increasing exerted forces.
MASS ENERGY AND EXPANDING SPACE
When extra energy is added to a gravity space field the field fringe expands. Black holes are a major contributor to expanding space. Black holes are gravity at its finest moment.
We can now observe as well as model black holes effects mathematically. Events outside the Horizon are somewhat understood. It's when we reach the Horizon things are not clear. Maybe the horizon is a 2 dimensional bubble wall, only 1 Plank length thick made up in gravity space units the same way as shown above. The outer side is the edge of so-called observable space and the inner side is non-local. Inside the horizon wall is a different type of dimension. A spaceless dimension! Not even empty space as we know it but lots of energy and information exchanges.
At the horizon the collapsing gravity space field vanishes when it reaches the wall
along with everything else. Where does it go? The collapsing gravity space field
reappears instantly out at the fringe of the gravity space field where it started from but the mass that vanishes is another matter. The mass is stripped of identity of form but the energy is not lost.
When mass is swallowed it adds extra energy to the gravity space field and the total gravity field space is expanded due to conservation of energy. The radius and amount of mass is proportional to the radius and strength of gravity field. So the horizon wall expands along with the gravity field space out at the fringe of gravity's reach. The black hole expands along with the space it creates. If a black hole is not consuming matter it will eventually evaporate into an expanded space field due to quantum changes of state. Neutron star collisions also may contribute to expansion of spacetime.
From the above we can make some predictions. Gravity waves radiate into the mass. Most of the accelerated expansion of the universe is due to mass being converted to gravity space. Gravity waves radiate with a frequency equal to the host mass particle oscillations. Galactic spin rate is partially due to the dynamics of the space it resides in. Conservation of angular momentum of spacetime shows as dark energy. Gravity waves pass a stationary object at c and do so as long as there is mass. Cassimere effect detectors should detect gravity waves.
The main theme of the above ideas is that gravity waves radiate into the mass and
not outward. Also there are no singularities or infinities in this. So far there is no conclusive proof of the direction that gravity waves propagate but the current work on gravity wave detection should help solve this riddle soon.
Robert Roudebush
Any coments? Positive and negative.
Posted by: Philip Ronald Dutton
I read previously on this thread about gravity in relation to sources and sinks, etc. After spending some quality time with the rule 30 cellular automata, I started to "see" within the rule 30 what appears to be a sink and source relationship. Much is mentioned about the rule 30's progression from one row to the next. I was trying to think of what is happening 'inside' of each row and not really worry about the 'top' to 'bottom' progression.
(Surely this perspective is discussed somewhere; However, I am a newbie and havent run into it anywhere.)
I am trying to understand the rule 30 'next row' progression with the interpretation that the next row is simply showing you the effects of all the sinks and sources within the previous row.
A triangle (such as what can be found in the rule 30 progression) can quite easily be thought of as representing some sink or source (depending on it's "North" or "South" orientation).
Perhaps this interpretation of the rule 30 is particularly suited to the sink/source/mechanical gravity discussion.
Also, does anyone have a reference to the rule 30 perspective which i just stated?
Anxious to hear some thoughts!
Posted by: jjjohns
Mark, your assumption of time being a universal constant may be causing you grief. A simpler assumption may be that time began.
This would permit you to think of time as decaying and regenerating.
Allow that thought to enter your process and see where it leads you.
I most enjoy your work and thoughts. My purpose in commenting is not to take away from your premise, but to encourage and stimulate your search.
Posted by: Mark Suppes
jjjohns, your point is well taken. I do not have much confidence in my statements about time. I chose the approach I did for simplicity.
bobroude, it is quite exciting to see so many people exploring the source to sink model of gravity. I think it is safe to say that Mechanical Gravity Theory is a Source to Sink model viewed from NKS. It is especially exciting that your own work proposes actual experiments.
Philip Ronald Dutton, I like your idea. I wonder how we would "see" an attractor in a trivalent network system. Who knows, perhaps if you sampled the network's evolution and put it on a computer screen, you would see it plain as day.
Posted by: Philip Ronald Dutton
quick note:
say there is a rule like this:
[ ] [*] [ ]
[ ]
this seems like a sink.
a rule like this:
[*] [ ] [ ]
[*]
or
[ ] [ ] [*]
[*]
these seem like the edge of sources..... (or remind me of them).
that is just one basic example of what I was talking about when I said that I "see" sinks and sources.
Also, as I think about 2D and 3D CA, I do not find any difficulty with the sink and source interpretation of what is happening.
Posted by: jjjohns
Perhaps a way to connect seemingly random portions of a complex equation is to assign graphic values to segments of the random portions. The resultant computer generated graphics describe shapes that can be visually compared and manipulated to further assign or change a value. A visual peek at the shape helps stimulate the imagination. This is particularly true when meditating on certain anomalies that may be functions of time.
Posted by: Philip Ronald Dutton
Allow me to start with the following simple 1D CA "source:"
[ ][ ][ ][*][ ][ ][ ] ..source just now appeared...
[ ][ ][*][*][*][ ][ ] ..sourcing symmetrically...
[ ][*][*][*][*][*][ ] ..sourcing symmetrically...
[...etc...]
My question for mech. grav. theory in relation to gravity sources and sinks is this:
Will mechanical gravity theory gravity sources and sinks behave symmetrically and remain free from what I shall call asymmetric "field" distortion (free from strange effects due to strange deep space phenomenon, or black holes , or whatever) ?
Thinking in 1D terms I restate as follows:
Can your mechanical gravity source produce "normally" on one side while producing at variable or different rates on the other side?
I hope the answer is that m. gravity sinks and sources behave symmetrically in their "fields." I believe that at the heart of CA (1,2,3 Dims for now) are sinks and sources which would be behaving normally and symmetrical (or that they are behaving normally); however, because of various possible rule combos, they appear to have distorted "fields"-- this is just interference or interaction: you can see in the 1D CA pictures (for example rule 30 here) sources or sinks and the distortion (noise,interference, interaction) areas inbetween. (note: rule 30 triangles collapse in evolution- obviously a sink!).
Posted by: bobroude
"Can your mechanical gravity source produce "normally" on one side while producing at variable or different rates on the other side?"
This is a good question. I feel the sink is the source of space, kind of like mass is recycling space, so they are symmetric in energy and frequency but, only energy and frequency need be equal. This allows for field distortions of space, particle transitions and energy exchanges while mass and space are still fully bound to each other. Robert
Posted by: Philip Ronald Dutton
Robert,
You begin your last sentence as follows: "This allows for field distortions of space...."
I am not a physicist but I ask, "If there is a gravity source which is pushing it's gravity field through space and comes in contact with a field distortion of space, will the gravity field be affected?" (restated: Will the gravity field, upon contact with the distorted space region, begin to distort or warp? Or, will the gravity field simply permeate unaffected and hence, retain it's symmetric field?)
I may be off in left field but if you clarify or correct me, it would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Phil
Posted by: Philip Ronald Dutton
Thinking about CAs being sinks and sources and relating that to my very limited knowledge of m. gravity theory, I now ponder a new question.
Given the following source:
[ ][ ][ ][*][ ][ ][ ] ..source just now appeared...
[ ][ ][*][*][*][ ][ ] ..sourcing symmetrically...
[ ][*][*][*][*][*][ ] ..sourcing symmetrically...
[...etc...]
I now see two possibilities.
1.) There is one source. It is the one cell which is 'on' in the first row. The last row has 5 cells on but there is still one source cell.
I almost visualize this interpretation as a field which is reaching through space. (source one reaches or pushes its field spanning any number of rows or evolutions).
2.) The last row with five cells are not the out stretched field of the source cell in row one. Rather, they are individual sources. In this case their affects do not stretch out into space and span many rows. Their fields can only go so far: to the next row. So the field of the row one 'on' cell only can stretch to the next row.
It is a distinction which requires some more thought and has some deeper implications. The number 2 interpretation, in my opinion, will destroy the idea of a field (be that gravity or magnetic or electric or whatever- again I note I am no physicist- I even have to think twice before spelling the word!).
Perhaps your comments would help me clean up my thoughts and allow me to restate them more clearly.
Thanks, gents!
Posted by: bobroude
Philip, space and gravity are intertwined so you cannot have one without the other. So to answer your question "(restated: Will the gravity field, upon contact with the distorted space region, begin to distort or warp? Or, will the gravity field simply permeate unaffected and hence, retain it's symmetric field?)" The gravity field will distort with the space distortion. This is a convergence of space gravity fields and a simple example would be an orbit. Hope this helps, Robert
Posted by: Philip Ronald Dutton
The following was stated a few posts back:
"I feel the sink is the source of space, kind of like mass is recycling space, so they are symmetric in energy and frequency but, only energy and frequency need be equal."
What is 'the sink' ?
Is there one 'sink' ?
I ask because I think that a sink is a source and that a source is a sink.... they are each other.
I explain this best using the topology transformation which I envision in my mind:
Think about a source ( a real one) where water is comming out in laminar flow. We should call this a source. Now, in your mind, you can see water comming out of a silver pipe. Well, you can not see through the pipe because it is metal. Slowly, in your mind, increase the amount of transparency in the pipe to about 80 percent. Now you can see water flowing down the pipe to the end. Well the tip of the pipe is the sink for the water in the inside of the pipe. The tip of the pipe is the source for water which is out of the pipe. If you want you can topologically peel the pipe out and down, effectively inverting it (although topologically speaking it is still the same).
Any theory based on sinks and sources will, in my opinion, require at least a quick look at this duality phenomenon.
Posted by: Tony Smith
Mark's suggestion which started this thread was that each and every massive particle is a sink, the overwhelming bulk of which were created in and have persisted since the first moments of the Big Bang. Mass is a measure of the rate of the massive particle/body's absorption of empty space (nodes).
This is also consistent with one of the fundamental laws of Prigogine emergence whereby every emergent phenomenon is able to exist only because it dissipates some flux in the medium. E.g. terrestrial biology helps dissipate that one two billionth of the Sun's radiative output which is intercepted by the planet.
I had already been working on the idea that Hubble expansion requires there be an ever growing number of sources of "empty" space, sources which are presumably by now concentrating in the voids between galaxy clusters, with the phenomenon we observe as gravity being accounted by the liquid-like flow of space from sources to sinks.
For this to work, sources need to greatly outweigh sinks, so the initially seductive concept of recycling and thus conservation of empty space turns out to be wrong headed.
There also needs to be a particular kind of coupling between the flow of empty space and the acceleration of mass therein, but such a coupling at first glance appears to me to be consistent with several observed phenomena which may be very difficult to account for without it, most notably conservation of linear momentum.
I don't pretent to be close to a comprehensible justification for my understanding of the dynamics of that coupling, but that doesn't stop it feeling right.
Posted by: Mark Suppes
In April, I submitted Mechanical Gravity Theory to the Gravity Research Foundation's 2004 Essay competition.
I got the results last night, and unfortunately it didn't receive any recognition.
However, for the competition, I produced a nice copy-edited and typeset version of the essay. For anyone who is interested, I've attached the PDF to this post.
Enjoy!
Posted by: Jason Cawley
However we imagine it happening, one thing we should know by now about gravity is that it gives rise to sinks in information terms. Whether this is an underlying rule property or only an emergent property in extreme configurations may be regarded as open to speculation. Either way, considering gravity in information processing terms seems to be a fruitful line of investigation. For a recent paper on information at black hole horizons and what it may suggest about QG, see this news and announcements thread -
http://forum.wolframscience.com/sho...s=&threadid=430
Posted by: Schroedinger
Okay, I'm going to be completely honest. Every time I see someone write "I'm not a physicist but..." I cringe. I am a physicist, or at least I have a degree in it, however you want to define that. I don't want to be a party pooper, but I have to say something.
This thread is making me absolutely nuts. Mark, you want to redefine gravity, that's fine, but could you please learn about the theories you are trying to replace? Don't you think it's a little crazy to think that without any study you're going to overturn the work of some of the greatest geniuses who have ever lived? You always were a "quirky" kid, but this is too much. The beauty of the general relativity was that it incorporated all of Newton's formulation, but also incorporated Maxwell's electromagnetic work and could explain phenomenon that Newtonian gravity couldn't (like the precession of Mercury's orbit). If this theory you are formulating is to have value, it needs to simplify into general relativity, at the very least you need to be able to give me basic newtonian mechanics. I asked for this before and there was no response.
DaveHayden, what you've theorized is actually very close to the thought process Einstein used in developing the general relativity. He too looked at the similarity between inertial effects and gravity. You got derailed, however, by this "nodes" theory, but otherwise rather astute.
I am not just here to bash. I am willing to help, if you want me to explain current theory, I'll do what I can. That way you will realize that you can't say a "gravity field" will distort with a space distortion, gravity IS a space distortion. Unless of course you're speaking of some formulation of gravity as a field in the same manner that QED and QCD define fields, but if have managed that call up the Nobel people right now.
Posted by: Tony Smith
Schroedinger, your claim that "DaveHayden ... got derailed ... by this 'nodes' theory" seems to me to be missing the fundamental point as to what NKS and this Forum is about.
At its heart, NKS is a claim that discrete models may ultimately serve better than continuous models to enhance our understanding of the universe. If that claim is to stand any chance of being useful, we need a credible candidate discrete model for space-time itself.
Wolfram's view is expounded at the start of his section on "Space as a Network":I believe that what is by far the most likely is that at the lowest level space is in effect a giant network of nodes. (...) the nodes are not intrinsically assigned any position (...) the only thing that is defined about each node is what other nodes it is connected to.
Others have come to a similar conclusion from quite different starting points, especially Lee Smolin et al working on "loop quantum gravity" and an even wider group working with "spin networks". These people are all front rank physicists.
But you also need to recognise that the real point of NKS is to establish the study of discrete models for their own sake as a worthy new kind of science, especially given that much of the work done in this field over the past few decades has been assigned the somewhat deleterious label "recreational mathematics".
To at least some of those of us who have been studying discrete models for many years, Mark's suggestion that the otherwise difficult to explain concept of mass may in fact be a measure of the net rate of consumption of nodes by each massive particle/object makes a lot of sense. It also clearly matches Newtonian gravity at the first level by proving an effect which reduces proportional to the inverse square of distance.
It is also uninformed to assert that general relativity is unambigously supported by data at very low accelerations. The nature and distribution of dark matter needed to explain "anomalous" accelerations at galactic and intergalactic scales is as yet far from reconciled with the dark matter needed to explain the early clumping of matter between the epochs that produced the cosmic microwave background and the earliest stars and galaxies.
The jury will be out for a long time on discrete versus continuous, but as a sometime student of history and philosophy of science, I have to note that there are areas where the mathematics of continuous models, while making accurate predictions, fails to actually explain much. Epicycles keep coming to mind.
Posted by: Jason Cawley
I may be more sympathetic to Schroedinger's point than Tony. People trying to do anything on this should be informed about existing physics, and should be regularly reading serious papers within it. This is fully compatible with an open mind to new ideas, wherever they come from. But a discrete construction that does not work is in no danger of being accepted as a fundamental theory of physics, as I am sure Schroedinger will agree. If it has interesting formal properties in its own right, it might tell us something anyway, perhaps about unrelated problems. If it doesn't, c'est la guerre.
Posted by: Schroedinger
I should apologize for my lack of precision in my previous post. By "nodes theory" I wasn't referring to the entire general framework of NKS, but rather to Mark's theory. While NKS may provide valid models in other areas, I can only speak to Mark's theory here as that is my area of understanding.
Working under the assumption that I am missing something in this discussion, could someone please explain how we get the inverse square law? Second, could someone please explain how this formulation gives rise to acceleration in falling bodies? If bodies are being basically "dragged" by "space" that is being "consumed" by massive particles, then wouldn't all objects move at the constant rate of consumption? If we used the flawed analogy of a drain in the middle of a tub of water (and assuming the system has no angular momentum) then the water flows out at a constant rate, and any object, a sponge, a rubber ducky, will move toward the drain at a constant rate. On the other hand, one could say that the "dragging medium" is accelerating, but that would lead to infinities very quickly, b/c the medium would have to be accelerating regardless of whether it was dragging something or not.
Lastly, let me declare that I wholeheartedly am a believer in the continuum approach to science. This is, of course, because that is what I was trained in. Admitting this is like admitting I prefer to speak in English, but I thought I would make this clear in case someone doesn't like a different point of view on this forum. I am here to provide a challenge to your ideas.
Posted by: Jason Cawley
Just addressing the forum related meta-issues, continuous methods have given us all kinds of useful results, and believers in them are perfectly welcome. Constructive criticism is helpful, and anything that is on point as to content can be constructive. The physics chapter of the NKS book recognizes the challenge involved just in reproducing existing results with discrete methods. Naturally problems arise in continuous methods too, and the difficulties there are part of the motivation for Wolfram's approach. Various sorts of overlap between them have proved fertile in the past. In the end, constructions that work are what are really wanted from either approach. Constructions that don't work fall by the wayside.
Posted by: Tony Smith
Schroedinger, at one level you seem to be missing the geometrically obvious, but at another you are raising a question which as yet has no well formulated answer and is thus deserving of further discussion.Working under the assumption that I am missing something in this discussion, could someone please explain how we get the inverse square law?
If in 3D space we consider a point mass where the net flow of nodes into that mass is proportional to the mass m, then examine a spheres at radius r. Assuming that the network of nodes that form empty space behaves like an ideal liquid, the net flow through the sphere will be directly proportional to m and the rate of flow at any point on the surface of the sphere will be proportional to m divided by the surface area of the sphere, i.e. proportional on m/r**2.
Of course that is the rate of flow of space and not obviously the acceleration experienced by say a small mass at radius r, but that is your second question.Second, could someone please explain how this formulation gives rise to acceleration in falling bodies?
This is the tricky bit, especially when it turns out that if the velocity of nodes towards a mass is proportional to r**-2, then the acceleration of those same nodes must be proportional to r**-5. So clearly if the theory has any meaning, one thing it does not mean is that (massive) patterns in the spatial network are simply carried along in the flow of empty space. The coupling between empty space and mass needs to be more sophisticated than that.
Given a modern understanding that space is something rather than nothing, it being so much harder to bend space than to bend an iron bar, we need to think deeply about the relationship between space and the massive particles and objects which space helps keep far enough apart. The perspective I am trying to get to is no doubt easier for those who have enjoyed time watching an ocean or better still diving deep into that ocean. When my mind's eye looks at a massive particle it sees an eddy in the local fabric of space, an eddy which is maintained not through a plug hole but through the net elimination of nodes from the evolving network, as Mark suggested.
But that still does not turn net flow into acceleration. That is going to require a newly perceptive understanding of the relationship between the medium (space, liquid) and the message (mass, vortex). Again looking at and even immersing yourself in the liquid can help you appreciate that emergent structures do not simply go with the flow.If bodies are being basically "dragged" by "space" that is being "consumed" by massive particles, then wouldn't all objects move at the constant rate of consumption? If we used the flawed analogy of a drain in the middle of a tub of water (and assuming the system has no angular momentum) then the water flows out at a constant rate, and any object, a sponge, a rubber ducky, will move toward the drain at a constant rate.
Um, no! Or rather it will in a one dimensional gutter running into a down pipe, but it will not in a roughly two dimensional bath, where the idealised speed of flow will fall off inverse linearly, nor from a suction hose in the middle of a deep swimming pool, where the idealised rate of flow falls off as inverse square.On the other hand, one could say that the "dragging medium" is accelerating, but that would lead to infinities very quickly, b/c the medium would have to be accelerating regardless of whether it was dragging something or not.
I don't really see where your infinities come in, especially given that one of the major justifications for network models is that they prevent you ever getting to zero. For example, if a node could be followed from when it was r units from a point mass m and moving as required at v = m/r**2 towards the mass (in standardised units) then the node's accelerated flow path would (on average) take it t/3 (t = r/v) to traverse r and be absorbed. If the mass was truly a point then the node would be travelling at infinite velocity for the last infinitesimal distance, but that is the whole point. The mass occupies some not quite infinitesimal space, and the node count gets reduced (continually) within the space it occupies in direct proportion to the inflow of nodes from empty space.
At this point many will throw up their hands because it all looks to hard to reconcile, but some will soldier on is search of candidate "simple" rules and network topologies which might sustain such a node elimination flow. Others might search for rules and topologies which produce conservation of linear momentum, to me an even tougher but likely connected problem.
As far as belief in the continuum is concerned, I should only need to point to the famous triumphs of Dmitrii Mendeleev or Watson and Crick to make the point that there are essential aspects of our world for which only discrete methods make sense.
Posted by: Mark Suppes
I have come across an article which expresses many of the ideas that I have presented in this thread and predates it. More generally, it has much in common with Wolfram's ideas. I assumed this was out there. I'm surprised it took so long to find it.
http://www.ctr4process.org/publicat.../pps_cahill.pdf
From the article:
"Gravity is essentially an in-flow effect associated with the loss of information"
- nodes are the fundamental units of information, so a loss of nodes is a loss of information.
"The Miller data also reveal the in-flow of space into matter which manifests as gravity."
- basically what I am saying - as a mass consumes space, space flows into the mass.
"A new and detailed theory of gravity arises. Essentially ever since the Einsteins proposed that absolute motion was without meaning and so unobservable, following Poincare, the physicists have essentially banned the concept, and it remains as such today. This state of affairs can be traced to a key misunderstanding that follows from the Einstein postulates; namely that absolute motion is incompatible with relativistic effects."
- I sense that this is related to what I am saying about general relativity.
Gravity is neither a force nor a curvature of spacetime, but rather inhomogeneities in the effective in-flow of the quantum foam that is space into matter.
- Similar to what I am saying.
All in all, a pretty exciting discovery. It is encouraging to see such a close match in ideas arrived at from different starting points. This paper contains no references to Wolfram.
The general site for process physics: http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/c...essphysics.html
Posted by: Tony Smith
I'm still wading through the Process Physics paper, having avoided even the temptation to try to jump directly into the galaxy-scale, dark matter-related bits, so I expect this won't be my last post on the subject.
The first big detour was the work of Gregory Chaitin on randomness which Wolfram mentions in a few NKS notes. Chaitin has a wonderfully endearing self-effacing style yet has made a contribution that makes saying "Godel, Turing, Chaitin" in one breath almost automatic, except, or course, that Chaitin is still with us and working for IBM.
The second big detour revealed that the distinguishing characteristic of Process Physics is not so much the inflow=gravity hypothesis per se as its effort to formulate same without reference to the dreaded aether. A baker's dozen more references to "Publications relating Aether Flow and Gravity" are cited on a broad reference list.
Then there were all those small secondary detours that the Web lets you make all too easily. Unsurprisingly, the epicycles analogy keeps raising its head.
Posted by: Mark Suppes
Tony, you are from Australia. Was Cahill on your radar?
Posted by: Tony Smith
Mark, I just e-mailed somebody else with the comment:With the curse of hindsight I can see why I might have glossed over earlier pointers to this Process Physics work, even though the lead researchers are on my side of the rock.
I certainly saw their original New Scientist coverage but that was before I had properly internalised the "randomness is cheap" message of Class 3/NKS, so at that stage it would have thrown me off the scent a bit. it was also early days on a fairly big job, so it was easy for it to slide off my radar.
Now I'm quite curious as to how a physics prof who is deputy head of school at a credible university manages to actually get his official specialisation listed as "Process Physics" without they sky falling in. Not that I'm suggesting that is anything other than a good thing. I have recently been looking for a good excuse to make that particular interstate trip as I do most years.
Posted by: Tony Smith
Wikipedia has an entry which is disclaimed as a "work in progress" but which already covers quite different territory to my response (see below). It might be a useful starting point for those for whom the original 110 page PDF is a bit daunting.
Meanwhile I took a while to digest as much as I could of the paper, to write a response and to seek some response to my first draft from a couple of people. There remains one point on which Reg Cahill and I have not yet managed a mutual understanding, but which I do not consider to be central enough to do more than add a disclaimer before I have a chance to go back over it. My response is available here.
Posted by: Mark Suppes
So it seems as though Wolfram has already expressed the central idea of Mechanical Gravity Theory. It's easy to miss, but there is a sentence in the section on gravity (chapter nine).
NKS Page 537, 3rd paragraph:
"Such a reduction is exactly what is needed to correspond to positive curvature of the kind implied by the Einstein equations in the presence of ordinary matter."
Did you catch that? I've probably read that sentence several times, but it never connected until now. The key word is "reduction". Wolfram is basically associating gravity with the reduction of node count over time.
Posted by: janos
How it is if you do not consume nodes, but just shrink them - based upon how far are they from the massive object?
Posted by: Tony Smith
janos, the basic idea of networks as we are talking about them here is that the only information that exists for a node is its links to other nodes. See NKS 475ff for Wolfram's discussion of how 3D space can emerge from such networks.
This means the only way you can bring A and B closer is by reducing the number of nodes between A and B. The discussion here is all about a "simple (enough) program" which both creates and eliminates nodes each tick depending on the local configuration.
I came into this unable to believe the standard interpretation of the Big Bang which presumes some analogue of inertia is maintaining the expansion ... at the same time as it is supposed to be creating space itself. The little bit of modeling I have managed to do suggests that the physics needed to build our world is likely to shake out very quickly from a rule space which briefly exhibits a much richer variety of local behaviour, most of which almost immediately dies out.
Posted by: Neumaier
[Seems that I lost my previous (first) attempt to post]
Many people have modelled gravity as
inward flow. One can get the 1/r^2 law
in this way. This is known already for 200
years.
But the challenge is another: can one also
get the curvature of space-time from this?
The curvature around a spherical mass
decreases as 1/r^3; can one deduce this
from the space-flow approach?
That would really convince everybody
in the physics communcity.
HN
Posted by: Philip Ronald Dutton
Given:
One dimensional line.
Pick a One dimensional flow in either of the 2 directions but not both.
Pick a point on that line. That is the point you will designate as a "sink." So you step back and look at the flow through that point. On one side the flow is opposite direction from the other side.
But, when you view that sink point very carefully you see there is no possible way to distinguish whether or not the flow is in or out at that point. It is both. Or it is none. Or we simply can not care.
That point itself can not know of the in or out flow direction. No combination of "things" in that one dimensional system can "team up" to figure out if the flow is in a given direction. That information can only be found when the one dimensional system is referenced to another dimension.
Projection of thought exercise above to higher dimensions is left as an excerise to the reader.
Posted by: Jesse Nochella
My thought:
What if the node/group of nodes/particle/etc just instantaneously (or as fast as necessary) transferred a node to another 'side' of it. That is, particle X with tons of tendrils takes the bits of space at every end of its tendrils and in some way, whether simultaneously, one at a time, cyclicly, or in some other way transfers them from their current location to another tendril. In the way I see it, there are at least two general ways this might happen.
One way preserves the connectivity of the nodes that are being switched, so that in a sense you are just having the same network with different pieces connected to pieces of 'matter' at each step. In this picture, perhaps the 'matter' parts can only connect to space but not themselves, and can connect with pieces of space that are perhaps a few connections out, maybe with less and less likelihood.
The other way takes the node and, in a way, physically transfers it, severing it from it's neighbors and giving it new neighbors somewhere else. This could also be looked at as a piece of matter kind of absorbing space while simultaneously (or after some amount of time) emitting space, perhaps randomly to another tendril, connecting it, perhaps randomly to some other nodes it is also connected to, or perhaps with other nodes the nodes it's connected to are connected to. So it's like a continual re-arranging of space all the time near the matter.
Is it possible for gravitational effects to emerge by the case of either of the two described things happening? I don't know. Here's what's on my mind about it:
In the first case, when you have the matter pieces re-arranging the points where it is connected to, if it does not re-arrange the points of contact for other pieces of matter, then there will be less of a physical locality of space when a bunch of matter is clumped together. That is, there are less space-nodes to connect to when when you branch out all there seems to be is matter-nodes. I can't fully visualize what would happen in this scenario. the options for implementation would be to define layers of space in terms of distance from the matter-nodes, then allow configurability of which layers, to which probability the matter nodes can re-connect to.
I also don't know what would happen in the second case, but this is what I see. Imagine some space; space-nodes or whatever-like. Take a piece of matter, which could be represented as some mesh of matter-nodes, or some star-like cluster where a node is connected to many nodes that are connected to eachother (as a cleaner representation). The more nodes the matter has to connect with the heavier it is, I guess. Any node connected to one of these matter nodes is moved some how to other 'sides' of the piece of matter. If you wish we can abandon the network picture and just picture space as just any ordinary kind of empty space we're used to, and a piece of matter as some object where at close distances, perhaps only just on contact, parts of space are constantly being flipped and shuffled around. The idea is that if some clump of empty space is close to two pieces of matter, then it is twice as likely to be caught up in the fray. If there are pieces of matter all over the place, then our piece of space is almost certainly going to get shuffled around. And after it is shuffled, if it is received by a neighborhood with just as many pieces of matter around, it will almost certainly get sent off again, on and on in the same manner until perhaps finally it may come to a place that does not occupy so much matter. And then it's likelihood of being mixed around again is less; in fact, it may become less and less as new pieces of space brought to the same location via the matter from whence it came. As the happens continually space that is "hot", being surrounded by matter is eventually shuffled to a "cooler location, therefore bringing the matter closer together.
One possible flaw in this model is that the space that is brought between pieces of matter balances the space that is removed to other locations. Maybe there are different patterns of transference that can make this go either way. Maybe if you play with the 'levels' (that is, distance from matter in node count) at which matter is re-arranged, perhaps some pattern that cycles or is random or is something else, would eventuate different effects.
Posted by: williamz1977
The stars and their forces, if they are disconnected, then they are really disconnected by diminishing force. Also, if an equation is to be balanced, to allow consideration of equational objects that follow rules of algebra, then most equations balance by composite motions on either side of an equality equation to connect objects through a constant. Then, a zero object is my consideration so that it does not exist in time. Then, multiple universe to produce multiple clock is inevitable to have GPS lose or gain time as an example when raw time betwean a point in a pattern of logic would take zero time to exist continuously. Then, if I write a pattern on a piece of paper, I could provide an interpretation that all of history has passed, however I would have to write another pattern simultaniously to have intersecting times of all possible interpretation of my pattern, scribble. Then, to draw a line would require time, and it also has finite dimension. So, infinite dimension zero bubbles could have the speed of light as a max time within that limit to scribble. Also, why would one line be scribbled? So, I think all zero's are scribbled simultaniously in infinite dimensions because we see in at least three and higher dimensions can collapse by solution and interference. Particles don't seam to be the same particle, but things have similar scales of observation. Example would be atomic radius and solar masses. Also, any one thing might have influence on any other thing instantaniously, or simultanious intelligence. So, since scales aren't very similar, neither would planes of existence or their precise connections. The idea comes from a geometry proof of simplex simplex packing where spheres of differing size fill the most space. Then, this idea lead me to ponder offsett planes of 3 space rather than 4d space so that radiation can move betwean planes at specific band widths and energy. Then, the planes could rotate or shift as the motion itself offsets the patterns of infinite dimension zero's. Then, some photon would appear a quanta because it moved to another plane of existence on intersecting zero's in observable pattern space. So, certain dimensions, then, relativity is preserved by relative pattern shift among all patterns in a wave like motion to knock a perceptional pattern an equal distance across another infinite density of zero's like pull balls on a pull table being absolutely conservative. So, the field of existence observation might be super conservative so that objects in motion tend to stay in motion. Then, the idea is that all the universe are like a giant crystal diffracting light. But, not that crystal is the property, but nothingness by tremendous scalling up towards visible matter by solutionable pattern shadows within composed sets of integer zero, or zero reference energy. Some integral size that makes things in our field of existence somewhat permanent, but that the zero's are so full of dimensionability and packing, like a black hole, that the universe is mostly a ultra shallow set of the total overlapping and conjoined zero domain. This was my idea of conservation of energy. Since the universe is empty, why would it ever have been full? And, if only so many types of particles exist, this seams to transition into a concept of more energy not being obtainable than the kinetic energy currently available. On the one side, harmonics maintain hydrogen. Or, no matter how much energy is utillized on matter, there is still hydrogen left over most of the time. On the other hand, if things are blown to bits, then this produces equal and opposite reaction unless dimensional lines are removed by such a reaction. Then, more intesting things would probably occur to account for this incident such as a black hole. So, if there never was anything, or the creation of the universe, there would still be a hyper continuity of nothing. Then, if there were always particulate matter of uniqueness, then it would be almost impossible to make an idea of why there are only 100 or so normal elements by intelligence and combination of billions of years, like trying to show that there is a god when objects in motion tend to stay in motion. So, the idea is that particular universe maintain particular combination betwean eachother to produce multiple clocks betwean pattern nothings. Then, the nothing is just a concept by saying zero, but an order of magnitude of zero so that zero's can have a polynomial surface of relative scale to connect to other zero's in a bubble point space at any point to provide infinite inner and surrounding dimensions to groupwise simplify or facterize surface basis sets for repeatable reactions on least common multiple platonic solids and stuff among relative zero vacuum point surfaces. Then, this idea seamed nice because prime number algorithms break down periodically, so surfacing a zero would have causality among sets for time to go forward by a prime producing sticky nature that evades me entirely for further concept. But the concept may be that if I could dream anything, then, how do I disprove a prime number? So, these numbers stick around longer than other concepts in infinite time. This notion led me to another which was that the patterns continuously interact to force a prime vertexed surface to change simplex complexity evenly among any universe group so that cesium always ticks the same as an example. So, to be most odd, molecules of atoms don't have regular bonds, so then very large primes out to infinity might be the atomic level. Or atoms could be how big an infinite prime number is, as well as a galaxy, and even a star. Then, there isn't likely variance, but probabilistic method of arriving at a higher surface prime. Then, this makes the prime surfaces sticky to cause a larger than infinite object to arrise. I thought this up because atoms are very similar in size or they won't remain in existence. Tollerance betwean atomic radius s small. So, a few different flavors of surfacing primes can exist on geoids or something in our universe combination. But, bonds can extend rather far betwean atoms. So, the idea is that prime exists larger than hadron. Then, anything to fudge a higher prime is favorable to have observable matter at all. Then, driving them would be other zero puzzle or pattern bubble zero universe intersection for differing particles in a small set with adjacent surfacing bubbles to rearrange universe forces. Then, patterns can make universes. The idea is that there is such a density of pattern capacity in pure nothingness that it is like a volcano where spouts come out of particular places on earth by the density of contour below that is metaphor, or allows for lumpiness in the universe. This idea seams simple if the nothingness of all has a precise border to simulate the uneveness of the earth. Like left is infinity cubed, but up is only infinity squared. However, with combinations and permutations, infinite dimensions must exist if such a thing exists. Otherwise, by what method would having anything at all come about if things are truely limited to our universe of some small extra set that what we see is actually all there is? For example, "In the milky way galaxy, on earth, we have olympic games, but we have never found life anywhere else in the universe." Then, this might be encapsulated in a flawed concept, but this implies asymetry among something else. Perhaps a boundary, then there exist boundaries betwean things. So, by looking at the universe, boundaries betwean things never cease to exist. So, other flawed things could exist as well, but this is just one idea. The dyned idea is what I can't quite think about to well. One thing is the other thing, hydrogen is hydrogen, so the same equational limits exist perhaps the same equation is a property bag or super string of sorts. When a pull ball of contemplation is hit, the center of mass, or the zero, breaks down and new primes are shot through all the point zero's densest points at infinite speed. So, like a tree, or some skin, the surrounding material rebuilds a similar primed surface. The whole idea of prime is that they must remain large like a natural distance betwean things to have alot before a great void level. Then, time might be somewhat constant and limited by light speed, so I think about something about electrostatics rebuilding the contemplation cores as they get passed around outside of time. The idea of leaving time doesn't make much sense unless just a maximum time is exceded among an array of acceptable observable time scales with escapable time scales. So, to escape, then this would be to get to another nothing. So, each nothing has a time, but betwean nothings there is no time even when they overlap. Or, a single zero is sacraficed to experience all time betwean two differing universe's zero's so things can have similar concepts rather than nothing at all. So, to traverse infinite zero's betwean points, even reality can become visible by dyning conceptualization of pure numbers or zero's topology.
Posted by: Enexseenge
Nodes:
I have made a rule for dealing with nodes taking into consideration a key assumption.
Before I describe the rule let me present the assumption.
Node Assumption.
I assume that no node may exist statically as a stable "piece of space” that describes a networked system of plane or volume.
Also the node does not exists in a continuous “empty” space volume as some “point” in that volume, but the node describes the space it self.
The appearance of a node is only feasible if that node has "received" a signal and then expressed to other nodes the reception of that signal, updating the entire network.
Now this is quite counter intuitive because how can the node "receive" a signal if it is not necessarily there to receive anything until something has been received.
Well, that is the key assumption…
In the assumption a node somehow manifests after a signal is projected into time..
The signal traverse through time, and at a certain point in time a node receives that signal and then “re-emits’ the signal (an expression).
After it express the received signal the node disappears because it is no longer giving us a tangible physical construct in order for us to define it’s existence, but that isn’t to say that the node may not receive multiple signals and emit an equal amount, thus creating a pseudo stable physicality.
Now, if we are to consider that there is a network of nodes then we represent these nodes by calling each one “S” to stand for “structure”..
Keep in mind that we are not sure if these structures exist but we are quite certain in this case because we have seen their appearance under similar conditions many times.
We next send a signal from a source and we watch as the network lights up through receiving that signal.
When our “S” receives a signal it becomes a new species called a “affect”.
The affect can be imagined as a “moment of fleeting physicality” that becomes a tangible physical construct through receiving the signal and holding the information of that signal for a moment.
As soon as the structure becomes noticed, becomes an affect, it decays back into an expression which is a “secondary” signal in terms of the original signal source…
So, S --> R = A --> E , as a (S)tructure (R)eceives a signal it becomes an (A)ffect which then emits an (E)xpression.
A “distance” in space is defined by a network of multiple nodes in where the expression of the first node becomes the reception of the next and this results in a chain of “lagged information” which is a measure of “space” in the common sense.
Now to the rule for dealing with Nodes..
Node Rule.
In order to observe a node you must always have a secondary node which receives the expression of the node you which to observe.
You cannot become aware of a node (or a network system) which has not emitted a signal, or if it emits a signal that does not become received by a secondary system.
A node must both receive a signal and express that receipted state to a secondary system in order to be known…
All stable network systems exist in a perpetual state of signal transfers between constituent nodes that defines the physicality of that system in terms of fleeting “bursts” pertaining to each node, an “update scheme” if you will.
Posted by: Nabeel
-
Posted by: Jonathan Wooldridge
For a while, we used to think that vacuums...sucked. Later on, we discovered that vacuums don't suck, they are just an absence of "push-back". A noun describing a background, when it is the foreground that has the action.
So here's a theoretical physics what-if:
What if gravity is also a background observation to an undiscovered foreground? Maybe there's a normal energy pressure of some sort that is blocked or dampened.
Forum Sponsored by Wolfram Research
© 2004-2008 Wolfram Research, Inc. | Powered by vBulletin 2.3.0 © 2000-2002 Jelsoft Enterprises, Ltd. |
Disclaimer
vB Easy Archive Final - Created by Xenon and modified/released by SkuZZy from the Job Openings