Wednesday, September 17, 2008

How I see the world!

For more than a year I have a vision of the world that I'm trying to refine and correlate to all the scientific research done around Quantum Gravity.

This picture came after reading an article on LQG (Loop Quantum Gravity) and especially this paper:
Quantum gravity and the standard model
Authors: Sundance O. Bilson-Thompson, Fotini Markopoulou, Lee Smolin

What a beautiful picture of the world: Everything we know are made of knots of space!

This paper was submitted in March 2006 and they revised it in April 2007. I'm just waiting for some breakthrough on this, because it fits so well with my vision, I cannot wait!

But since, I'm still waiting, I decided that I better express somewhere what I have in mind, someone may found the theory matching it better than this LQG vision?

When I think about what we know as fact about our world, it's just “out of this world”! That's a mental exercise (trying to visualized what cannot be) that I is so exciting, I cannot stop doing it!
So, our world is made of:
  1. General Relativity: Everything is relative, Space and Time are linked, Energy stresses spacetime.
  2. There is no infinite: There is always integer values of something (quanta) when you go down, Space and Time have finite global values.
  3. Quantum State is REAL: The quantum state of entangle photons is not determined when they are created but exists as long as decoherence does not kicks in.
  4. The strong force is asymptotic.
  5. The weak force is chirally asymmetric.
  6. There is dark matter and/or MOND.
  7. There is dark energy or non null vacuum state.

How can you unify this?
Just plain crazy enterprise if you ask me!

But with the space knots in mind, the picture can actually hold.
So space itself is made of quanta, and everything is quantized because of it. There is only one source of the appearance of quanta in all physics: Space itself is made of quanta! Clean and beautiful.
This way there is no more infinite appearing in your theory, since there is no physical room for infinite. The Universe has mathematical borders in the big and the small.

So, what about time? Well, if time has quanta, it means there is a maximum “frequency” for everything going on in the world. What's nice here, is that in SR, when Observers are moving one compare to the other, they always see the “frequency” of the other slow down. You cannot decrease this minimum of time between 2 events.

Now, out of this picture, everything is not made of strings or p-branes (that are made of what exactly?), but everything is made of space quanta pieces itself. All particles are a good bunch of space quanta wrapped in a knot.

What is gravity in this vision?
All energetic particles can be modeled has pulling on the blanket of 3D space to make knots in some other dimensions. Pulling on the blanket of space as one effect: deformation of space.

Now, there is one thing wrong about the standard representation of General Relativity: The rubber mattress deformed by a heavy ball.
To explain gravity, you use gravity! Using the concept of up/down and everything is pulled towards the bottom, is wrong. Because deforming space does not provides force.
If you picture the equivalence principle elevator, in a world where energy will deform only space. Then a black hole is just passing by, the elevator will be highly distorted, and after the black hole is gone, it will go back to normal. Basically, it did not move.
Deforming space does not provide force. It's because space and time are linked and gravity is also distorting time, that we keep our feet on the ground. Isn't it amazing to think that!

So, if the space quanta knots are just pulling on the space blanket. How can you generate gravitational force?

Here is what I have in my vision: All knots are moving at the speed of light. They are all subject to the time quanta “frequency”. So, for every tick of their clock they need to move! All particles with mass needs to steal the blanket of space in all 3 dimensions. And so, as good vibrating particles they use all the space around them.
Now, if space is deformed by the passing black hole, moving towards the black hole is a lot easier than away from it. Space quanta are a lot more packed and easy to make knots from when close to the black hole. So, every single particles of the elevator will “statistically” move towards the black hole.
I really like this idea, and I cannot find reference to it or research around it. I did not look too much though!
What's nice here, is that gravity is not a “force”, and certainly not a “quantum field” with a graviton, it's really something totally different than the other forces because it's just the statistical behavior of particles in a deformed space.
With this vision, the reason for the very low strength of gravity is obvious, and the reason for MOND can also be found. In a space where gravity is very low, space quanta are still deformed and so statistical behavior of particle is still influenced. So, gravity will feel a lot stronger than it should with GR.

Another thing about knots in space quanta, is the number of dimensions. If the space quanta are actually coming from a 4D space (the LQG version of the 5D Kaluza-Klein theory) and every particles that steal from the space blanket needs to make knots in extra dimensions, the pictures of Matter/Anti-Matter, Spin integer values, Quark colors, are a lot easier to make.

For photons, and other massless particles, they need to drop one space dimension. They are stealing from the blanket of space only on a plane. By doing so, the frequency imposed on everything make them travel at the SOL in the perpendicular direction.

Now, how do you represent a gluon has a knot? Well, for once, a gluon is really behaving like a knot! It let the quarks behave freely when they are close to each other, and it starts to tighten itself VERY strongly when they want to get apart! So, may be the quark is a very unstable heavy pack of space quanta, that can be hold out only with an extra knot: the gluon.

If someone has some links pointing to theories (that are researched or that already failed :) that are close to my vision, I will really appreciate.
I'm really excited by today's physic challenges and hope I'll see some breakthrough in my life time: The first proof that we are living in a “Funiverse”!


James Jr said...

Hello Frederic,

Very interesting insight. I am doing very similar, trying to discover "what might make the universe tick" based recent conjecture such as loop quantum gravity and string theory and examination of the huge amount of empirical cosmological observation that does not fit perfectly with standard model and common sensibilities, and more specifically looking for a more plausible possible explaination for what might have triggered the big bang that might not require improbable events or inflation theory which I find more convenient than plausible. (I have a similar background, software development consulting with more of a Microsoft focus and some college physics background).

I would recommend an article that you might find compelling (I did and then some), Quantum randomness may not be random, NewScientist magazine, 22 March 2008[1].

The focus of the article is deterministic (Bohmian) Quantum Mechanics (very well presented) that brings simplicity back to theoretical physics and removes the weirdness of multi-verses and faster than light communication and other paradoxes predicted by non-deterministic QM (another way to conceptualize quantum mechanics without the paradoxes and weidness). Dr. Einstein believed in deterministic QM and recent work in this field suggests he may have been correct after all. One interesting prediction of deterministic QM is that entangled photons are not spooky and don't communicate at all, they are just exact copies, clones (two instances of the same "photon" object in computer science speak, both loaded with the same property values). Wins Occam's razor by a very wide margin I think.

For some other food for thought, I run two open source web speculative physics projects,[2] and[3] is the result of 10 years of work (off and on) attempting to conjecture what might have triggered the explosion of the big bang, it made significant progress in the last few month.

I found your blog working on Collider safety issues, don't know how familiar you are with this, but I believe we may be taking a huge gamble, possibly as soon as next week, about like building a nuclear power plant in your basement and assuming it must be safe, what could go wrong?


[1] Quantum randomness may not be random, NewScientist magazine, 22 March 2008
[2] Pre-big bang conjecture
[3] Mass conjecture

Frederic Simon said...

Thanks for your comments, I just started this blog and I'm happy to see readers :)
I wrote another entry about the Bell Inequality!
About the LHC, I hope to find the time to write about the "funiverse" proof, soon! But to answer your question ther is a nice website that reflect my view:

James Jr said...


But I found a possible logical flaw with your site.

On the surface of Earth your site will always be 100% correct.

However, if your website was copied to space lab it is possible at some time in the future your site could return the wrong answer (but not for another 5 to 50 years if Dr. Roessler's worst case sceinario comes to pass).

As for the Bell Inequality, I studied that one also trying to solve the local/non-local problem, but I did not find the proof compelling. Sounded more like a clever mathmatical card trick.

There are proofs planed to determine if Dr. Einstien's intuition was correct after all, so have an open mind, there is probably more that we don't know than what we do, and I do suspect we will eventually figure out what is knowable.

I just got my copy of Scientific American in the mail, excellent lead article "Forget about the Big Bang: Now it's the Big Bounce".

I liked the article very much. I suspect the atoms of space time may contain emence amounts of energy that may produce gravity, possibly at smaller scales than matter. (Just a related conjecture, a work in progress...).

James Jr said...

Acutally more of a related conjecture.

Anonymous said...

"There is no infinite: There is always integer values of something (quanta) when you go down, Space and Time have finite global values."

It is for this reason that I used to annoy my professors endlessly by arguing that there's no such thing as an analog signal. No signal can be continuous because at some level we're dealing with quanta. A truly continuous signal would convey infinite information. So everything is digital unless we want to redefine the terms. Analog would then mean a signal that is as continuous as possible. Or that has a sufficiently high sampling rate (arbitrary). Or that exceeds a particular threshold (convention).