Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd:General relativity equations are surprisingly similar to the equations used to compute stress and deformations in the solid bodies. This suggests the fact that spacetime may have a CRYSTALLINE structure

Expand Messages
  • cyrano@aqua.ocn.ne.jp
    Dear Ross, I would like, if possible and you have time for it, to clarify something. To get an idea where I am standing. You say that electrons and neutrinos
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 18, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Ross,

      I would like, if possible and you have time for it, to clarify something.
      To get an idea where I am standing.

      You say that electrons and neutrinos are phases of the same wave
      (let's call it lepton-wave), and that the
      phase is measured with respect to some sort of wave embeded in the
      spacetime (let's call it reference-wave).

      Now, consider the following systems of leptons interacting each other:

      a) two electrons;
      b) two neutrinos;
      c) one electron and one neutrino.

      a) and c) are rather well known experimentally and directly.
      b) is also well known, but indirectly (so you can question this knowledge).

      1. If all that matters is the two interacting lepton-waves, then two
      interacting
      electrons and two interacting neutrinos must behave in the same way (both
      have a
      zero relative phase with respect to each other). But we know that this is
      not true.
      A pair of electrons interact a lot stronger than a pair of neutrinos.

      2. Interaction between two leptons is actually mediated by the reference
      wave:
      The electron couples to the reference wave stronger (is in phase) than the
      neutrino (which is at 90 degrees). This approach seems to give the desired
      results (compatibility with experiments).

      However, the latter approach is nothing else than the Standard Model (SM)
      approach: the reference-wave is the FIELD, the lepton-wave is the particle.
      For the moment there are four different fields (or three if you take weak
      and electromagnetism together), yet people hope to unify all within a single
      field. Therefore the approach is not new.

      Yet, there is a MAJOR difference: in the SM the field is the extended
      object, while the particle is LOCALISED (some people would love to see it as
      point-like, others string-like, others membrane-like and so on). The field
      is wave-like, the particle is corpuscule-like.
      So, separated particles interact with each other via the field to which they
      couple.
      (However, one always have the particle and the field together, therefore the
      duality.)

      In your model you have just waves: the leptonic waves and the
      reference-wave. My question is what's the role of the reference-wave in your
      model? The lepton-wave are overlapped already and they should be interacting
      directly, without any mediator. But if this would be the case you run into
      problems with the phase difference between two neutrinos (zero) and two
      electrons (again zero), which give different physics.

      You see, why experiments and a sort of logic (in which we might've become
      prisoners) conducted to this idea of interaction: Particles are localised,
      they couple (interact) locally with the field, the field is extended (and
      allegedly created by the sum of all localised particles)?

      Precisely because people have seen that two electrons do not interact in the
      same way as two neutrinos or an electron-neutrino pair. The same with other
      particles from the same family. If particles would've been waves only such a
      scenario is not possible. I don't know how to say it more clear.

      The SM gives very good predictions, which means that the model described
      above is at least mathematically correct (may be wrong, but the mathematical
      formulation is correct; there are plenty of examples of different
      systems/models which are described by the same set of mathematical
      equations). The big unanswered question is the following: why particles
      couple differently to the field? Where those masses are coming from? Where
      all those various properties are coming from?

      If they are point-like they should all be identical (a point is a point and
      has no other features). Therefore point-like particles are in a way already
      ruled out as a possibility.
      But string-like have also been ruled out for other reasons. So people are
      trying now membrane-like objects, which I am 100% confident they will fail
      too :-).

      Both extremes: corpuscules only and wave only objects seem not to fit the
      reality properly. I strongly believe that particles are in between: they
      have a wave like structure AND a corpuscule-like structure.

      General relativity equations are surprisingly similar to the equations used
      to compute stress and deformations in the solid bodies. This suggests the
      fact that spacetime may have a CRYSTALLINE structure (the fact that
      torsional/shear stress-like terms appear in gravity is from the start a sign
      that spacetime cannot be fluid-like). Particles may be either oscillations
      modes of this structure (in which case they are bosons, associated thus with
      fields), or defects in the crystalline lattice (in which case they are
      fermions, associated thus with localised particles). This view fits Pauli's
      exclusion principle (you can overlap bosons/fields, but you can't overlap
      fermions) and with other quantum laws.

      >From the arguments listed above, I give more credit to those models in which
      the vacuum is modelled like a solid (see Finkelstein model), rather then
      those in which the vacuum is modelled as a fluid (which are incompatible
      with GRT).

      So, although I am not satisfied with the Standard Model, I see no point in
      replacing it with another model which is as unsatisfactory or even less.

      This is a sort of personal statement (to explain my behaviour/way of
      thinking and so on) and should not be interpreted in an offensive way, or
      lack of respect way and things like this. Or like I don't give a dime on
      such models/ideas. And above all, no one is fully qualified to decissively
      rule what is true and what is wrong.

      Yours,

      Daniel
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.