could there really be a subatomic particle for gravity (graviton) like this theory says?
or sparticals for every sub atomic particle (such as electrons and gravitons)
which are heavier

could there really be a subatomic particle for gravity (graviton) like this theory says?
or sparticals for every sub atomic particle (such as electrons and gravitons)
which are heavier
I'm opened minded about gravitons, yet would only be persuaded of their existence if they showed how they curved spacetime, thus still allowing Einsteins geometric representation of gravity to continue.
Its kind of like a world of blind people with an understanding of the theory of light and mirrors. They know the reflections should be there in the mirrors even though they cannot see them.Originally Posted by antimatter54
Supersymmetry has been around for quite a while, and there never has been any alternative to the way these supersymmetry solves a great deal of mathematical difficulties in making quantum physics work for the theory of gravity. Now I am no expert on Mtheory (only knowing some of the basic ideas), but it does occur to me that now we that see the world as populated not just by point particles as resonant frequencies on strings but also by higherdimensional branes, it may be that these supersymmetric "particles" may be represented exclusively by the latter, who knows?
Gravitons have been around even longer and provided that it is possible to quantize gravity at all, they must exist.
well the idea of graviton would be the same as say the caloric theory wouldent it? I mean if graviton were real then it would be a reality of humans creating artificial gravity. To me it just seams like a far fetched idea.
Is it possible that gravitons might be used as a way to deal with the level of "curviness" surrounding matter due to the geometric distortions experienced as gravity? I mean that they might not exist as physical particles, but might be usefull as a way to provide a quantized base to work from when considering gravitational systems?
So it's a mathematical metaphor?Originally Posted by KALSTER
That’s what I want to find out. I think string theory treats it as an actual particle, but I am wondering whether it absolutely has to be treated as such for string theory to work.Originally Posted by Obviously
For that matter all particles are "mathematical metaphors" in the sense that it is the mathematics that counts, however we may envision it in our heads. So the question is whether the mathematics of the graviton is really any different than the mathematics of other particles. One difference in the most current version of Mtheory is that while other particles are "tied down" to our fourdimensional space time the gravitons are not. So do you think you can construe this being a particle in a higher dimensional spacetime as "not being an actual particle"?Originally Posted by KALSTER
I am actually wondering whether gravitons can be thought of as the amount of tension (level of curviness) in that point in the spacetime fabric. So what I mean with “not an actual particle” is that it might be something in the line of phonons and the moving positive ions of conventional current. That is, they are only treated as particles for convenience’s sake. You say that current Mtheory thinks of gravitons as not being bound to the 4 dimensions of “normal” spacetime, but would that not be a feature of a purely geometric interpretation of gravity as well?Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
All this prejudice against the phonon in suggesting that it is not a "real" particle. He he he.Originally Posted by KALSTER
A quantization of the "level of curviness" is exactly what the graviton is, of course. But if Mtheory is correct then something similar is true of all particles: they are all just a quantizations of different types of vibrations of the same 11 dimensional spacetime "fabric".
Well of course, but again that is true of all particles. We treat them as particles when that is convenient and as waves when that is what is convenient.Originally Posted by KALSTER
Of course. The reduction of all physics to the geometry of higher dimensional space time is the general trend of unified field theory.
Ok, cool. So do gravitons exclusively from part of string related theories or do they form part of the standard model as well?Ok. (TANGENT WARNING) Now you have read some of my hypothesis that (probably naively) suggests that particles themselves might essentially be folded up or curled up spacetime fabric. Meaning that particles would essentially be complex waves, explaining particle wave duality by suggesting that when wave properties are observed it is the wave aspects of the particles interacting with its environment as a wave should, while when classic particle properties are observed it interacts as a classic particle should. Duality then is observed as a result of the particles being subjected to either wavetype interactions or particletype interactions. So then this would go towards the trend of unified field theories as you suggested.ENDWe treat them as particles when that is convenient and as waves when that is what is convenient.
Mtheory works from the premise of the existence of vibrating, Planck sized (I think) strings. Where did this idea arrise from, or what suggested the existence of these strings? What are they exactly?
No! Of course not! gravitons are what is missing from the standard model and are in fact what all the fuss is about  how to get gravity into a quantum field theory  this is what string theory is trying to attempt. To make this clearer I think it would help if you understood something that happened right after general relativity was discovered. It was a discovery of a guy named Kaluza who just out of curiosity tried to see what happened if you did General Relativity in 5 dimensions instead of 4. Big surprise. Can you guess? Out popped Maxwell's Field Equations for Electric and Magnetic fields. Perhaps this will help you understand why scientists are so sure that the goals of unified field theory (i.e. quantizing gravity) must be possible.Originally Posted by KALSTER
Actually I think it first originated in an attempt to describe the strong nuclear force, that was superceded by quark theory. But later in the attempts to quantize gravity in various numbers of dimension there were so many problems that various terms in the equation kept coming out as infinite. Supersymmetry was a big help allowing these supersymmetric particles to cancel out a lot of these infinities. Then it was realized that a lot of the problems were related to the fact that particles were dimensionless points and that is when the work on strings was revived and found that it not only took care of a lot of the infinites but that all the different kinds of particles matched up perfectly to the different vibrational modes of these strings.Originally Posted by KALSTER
The biggest problem was that there was not just one string theory but several of them.
But Mtheory not only connected up these different string theories making them convertable to each other but also provided a way of reviving 11 dimensional supergravity (GR+supersymmetry+quantization in 11 dimensions) as another related theory. In other words, the strings basically appear as mathematical artifacts when you convert the 11 dimensional supergravity (by a mathematical process called compactification) into a 10 dimensional theory.
All of this sounds really neat, but of course there are a LOT of unanswered questions, not the least of which are how to test this theory and how to make any use of it.
Ok, this might leave you with a big What!?expression on your face, but here goes.
So you said that supersymmetry solved a lot of problems. Now, let’s say that particles or the various types of spatial distortions associated with them (forces) have some sort of a fractal nature. Would that be a form of supersymmetry? Supersymmetry of what exactly are talked about when referring to stringtheory? When you talk about vibrational modes, what do you mean exactly? Frequency, amplitude?
Wow, that is really interesting. Why did it advance to 11 dimensions then?Out popped Maxwell's Field Equations for Electric and Magnetic fields. Perhaps this will help you understand why scientists are so sure that the goals of unified field theory (i.e. quantizing gravity) must be possible.
Ok, that might be a bit of a "what". Fractal symmetry is what I would call a symmetry of scale. The Mandlebrot set has this symmetry because you can find smaller things that look like the whole Mandlebrot set inside the Mandlebrot set. Symmetry of scale is already being used in string theory, supersymmetry is something else which is far less intuitive.Originally Posted by KALSTER
Perhps it helps to realize that 11 dimensions makes it possible to have a lot of different kinds of symmetry.
It is like the symmetry between positive and negative charges, or between particles and antiparticles. It is saying that there is some other quality of particles which can be plus or minus and we just see the plus particles because one of the asymmetrical developments of the universe makes the plus particles low mass and minus paticles very high mass.Originally Posted by KALSTER
It is like when you make waves in a chain or a slinky between your hands (or between the hands of two different people) You can make slow waves with one hump, faster waves with two humps, even faster waves with three humps, and so on. It is also like how you can get different tones on a bottle by blowing accross the top depending on how hard you blow. These are different vibrational modes  that is vibrations at different energies (or other quantities).Originally Posted by KALSTER
Frequency is part of it, but multiple dimensions adds other factors, like in the waves on a slinky in our prevous example there three directions for the wave displacements (one in the direction of slinky for longitudinal waves). There is an integer number of modes but like the slinky example sometimes there is a degeneracy (more than one mode for the same energy) and these modes mix continuously in linear combinations, in which case like the choice of coordinate axes, the choice of independent modes can be somewhat arbitrary. Without gravity there is a degeneracy between horizontal and vertical displacements and thus the choices of the different modes is arbitrary in that case.
The different electron orbitals in an atom are the same thing. Since electrons can be considered waves, when the nucleus of an atom ties an electron to itself it can vibrate on that "tether" with different vibrational modes. But here the only difference isn't just energy. There is electron spin and orbital angular momentum too. This is why you have two elements in the first row of the periodic chart and six in the next row. At the higher energy level there are a lot more vibrational modes for the electrons due to more possible orbital angular momentums.
Because you want to account for the other forces of the universe and not just gravity, electric and magnetic force. There are also the strong and weak nuclear forces, which account for the bulk of these additional dimensions. Then as I expained above 1 more dimension can account for the strings of string theory. The result is a purely geometric theory (although geometry in 11 dimensions is no piece of cake). But still, very cool indeed.Originally Posted by KALSTER
By the way, I did not intend to suggest that you were wrong. I was just joking around. Phonons are indeed considered "pseudoparticles". But all this means is that they are not considered "fundamental". They are not constituents of matter but more phenomenological. You could compare them to beat frequencies, and so are perhap wavelike entities on a higher level  like a wave made out of waves, or a wave on top of other waves.Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
OK. I read somewhere (and I might have misunderstood), that a line in one dimension would be a dot in the second dimension, a line in 2D would be a dot in the 3D and so forth. That would mean that all points in a 3D space would be interconnected in a 4th spatial dimension. Is that right? If it is true, then why does the strong force act over such short distances?
I would say that you misunderstood and have it backwards. When representing something in a higher dimension by a map to a lower dimension some objects will lose dimensionality. Thus for example, in such a map from 3D to 2D some planes will become lines and some lines will be come points. Turning this around in the reverse process, this means that every point in 2D space will become a line in the 3D space and every line in the 2D space will become a plane in the 3D space.Originally Posted by KALSTER
All this means is that every point in 3D space is represented by a higher dimensional object in the higher dimensional space which the 3D represents, a ring in 4D space, a sphere in 5D space, a 4hypersphere in 6D space, etc... (this assumes the space is unbounded, and these are only the simplest possible shapes even in that case)
I am not sure what you mean by this. But the only way I can even make the remote sense of it is this: when we go from a lower dimensional space to a higher dimensional space boundaries can lose their bounding qualities. What I am talking about is the fact that a circle which separates 2D space into inside and outside, ceases to do so in a 3D space. Thus we know that likewise a sphere which separates 3D space into inside and outside, ceases to do so in a 4D space. Just as you cannot make boundaries in 3D space with curved lines, you cannot make boundaries in 4D space with surfaces  that would require something 3 dimensional.Originally Posted by KALSTER
Well I am not sure what you mean, but if you are asking why the strong force does not operate over larger distances (also known as quark confinement), it is because the force is so strong that the potential energy exceeds the mass energy of particles and thus creates particles to prevent a longer range operation. If you try to pull the quarks in a proton apart, new quarks are quickly created and you end up with a two composite particles like a proton and a neutral meson, or a neutron and a postive meson.Originally Posted by KALSTER
Cool, thanks for the detailed replies!
Is time still considered a dimension in Mtheory? I mean these 11 dimensions are all spatial dimensions, no? How is movement dealt with then?
I read that the extra dimensions are somehow "wrapped up" inside particles. That is why we have difficulty with an intuitive understanding of these dimensions, since we have ever only observed and experienced 3D in our evolution. Is that accurate?
Now. [Tangent]Let’s say you grip a Planck sized portion of space and started twisting and turning, let go and the distortion stayed there. How would the innards of that distortion be considered dimensionally? I mean it becomes difficult to think about, since it is not a piece of rubber that gets twisted where there are portions where folds touch each other. When these rubber folds are forced apart, a vacuum forms. But with the spacetime fabric, no such vacuum can exist. So how could that work?[End]
What are particles then exactly?
Yes time is a dimension, and it IS included in the 11 dimensions.Originally Posted by KALSTER
Yes this was an idea of another scientist named Klein back when Kaluza did his calculation with 5 dimensional GR. It was Klein's idea that we did not see the 5th dimension because it is very small. (Thus some of the earliest unified field theories were called KaluzaKlein theories).Originally Posted by KALSTER
It is kind of lke a piece of paper is really a 3 dimensional object because it does have a thickness even if that thickness is really small. The difference from the paper, however, is that the universe does not have boundaries  you go enough in one direction and you come back to where you started. In the 5th dimension that is a VERY VERY short journey. Like I said, a point in 4D spacetime becomes a small Plank sized circle in the 5D spacetime (where that extra dimension is very small).
Thus even if spacetime is really 11dimensional, it is so thin in 7 of these dimensions that it is effectively only a 4dimensional universe. The other 7 dimensions are only seen in all the particles and forces that inhabit our 4 dimensional universe.
But it would not stay there but bounce back and forth in a vibration of some sort that I think we would observe as one or more particles.Originally Posted by KALSTER
The difference from the rubber is that the rubber is a surface embedded in a larger space. The mathematics of GR demonstrated that spacetime curvarture did not require one to think of spacetime as being embedded in a larger space. The curvature or twisting as you call it has a clear mathematical description as a property of spacetime itself without any reference to a larger space. Whether we can visualize it or not, the mathematics is unambiguous, and for REAL physics that is all that matters.Originally Posted by KALSTER
So in a "purely geometric theory", particles would basically be quantizations of waves (vibrations) in the fabric of spacetime itself.Originally Posted by KALSTER
So is it still considered as only a measure of relative movement?Yes time is a dimension, and it IS included in the 11 dimensions.
That is an interesting point! [T]Then the more massive a particle (larger distortion), the longer it would take for a cycle to complete. I would guess that these occilating distortions would not be confined to a precise spherical area, but would create 3D distortions in surrounding space that would dissapate with distance. The shapes of these secondary distortions would depend on the particles of its making. Kind of like pinching a piece of cloth in the middle and twisting it, making spiral patterns in the surrounding cloth. [E]But it would not stay there but bounce back and forth in a vibration of some sort that I think we would observe as one or more particles.So my little hypothesis is not so far from current theory after all? Now for the question: What is the spacetime fabric? Not simply the space between objects, surely? Quantum foam?So in a "purely geometric theory", particles would basically be quantizations of waves (vibrations) in the fabric of spacetime itself.
Time is a variable and dimension in mathematical equations of physics. Any discussion of what time is beyond that is not really physics but philosophy.Originally Posted by KALSTER
Yes the billiard ball image of particles is wrong. Yes particles do dissipate into surrounding space like a wave, but then interactions with large numbers of particles will make this wave collapse into a point again in a manner that is not governed by any equation of physics or determined by any preceding variables of physics. It is not just that these variable are not known to physics for it has been experimentally proven that they cannot even exist within the theoretical framework of physics. See "Bell's inequality".Originally Posted by KALSTER
A cloud chamber will prevent such a dissipation for any of the particles with a charge. Allowing us to make a picture of the tracks they make as they move through it. It is by studying such tracks that the physicist studies particle interactions and the result of the big colliders that convert kinetic energy into high energy particles.
Yes the kind of distortion would determine the kinds of vibrations produced and thus the types of particles produced.Originally Posted by KALSTER
That is not a physics question. All that signifies in physics is the mathematical role of these dimensions. The physicist will visualize them in whatever manner he likes, but unless this has an impact on the mathematics it has no physical significance.Originally Posted by KALSTER
Yes, that is what I mean: a variable in equations. This variable then relates to the RATE of change. My knowledge, though, only extends to time related to 3D, but how does it feature in equations dealing with 11 dimensions? Is time then one of the 11 Dimensions, or is it always added after the initial spatial dimensions, i.e. let's say motion in 4 spatial dimensions is being considered. Does time then feature as the 5th dimension as the rate of change?Time is a variable and dimension in mathematical equations of physics. Any discussion of what time is beyond that is not really physics but philosophy.If I understood the Wikipedia article on Bell's inequality, hidden variable theory is given as a consequence of relativity, with the alternative being QM and nonlocality. The article mentions certain loopholes that still have to be accounted for? Also, that not all the experimental results confirmed the QM explanation, although confirmatory results were attained upon repeating of the experiment. Another thing mentioned is the less than 70% accuracy of the equipment that still leaves some room for hidden variable explanations, although tenuous. Is that the gist of it?It is not just that these variable are not known to physics for it has been experimentally proven that they cannot even exist within the theoretical framework of physics.
Now, I hope you (and me too ) understand what I mean when I put this out there: Is it possible that a particle can physically exist in between defined states? When it interacts with another particle (the secondary spatial distortions), the two particles affect each other in such a way that they line up to the nearest defined state available? I mean, that particles exist in a state where it would statistically be more likely to be measured as being in a defined state. The area of probability would then be affected by the entanglement of the particles. That would mean that the odds might have the characteristic of apparently confirming the QM stance in most circumstances. I think that only 8 experiments to test Bell's inequality have been done? My proposal would suggest that a probability curve would start to emerge after completion of many more experiments. How far from a possible mark am I on this?
What I am asking is what physical attributes have been assigned to space that warrant the current treatment with mathematics?The physicist will visualize them in whatever manner he likes, but unless this has an impact on the mathematics it has no physical significance.
Note: None of this is a direct challenge against what you’re telling me. It is only my way of trying to make sense of all this. Every time you shoot down something, I learn from it.
A rate of change is a derivative and you can calculate such a rate of change or derivative with respect to any variable. The only connection with time would only be that rates of change with respect to time are the ones that we are most familiar with.Originally Posted by KALSTER
I am not sure exactly what you are asking here. Time is the fouth dimension. Period. To the 4 large visible dimensions including time, all the others are added. When you absorb the lessons of relativity especially and quantum field theory, you think of time as a variable and a dimension  the fourth one. Its not space and then add time to it to get motion, its spacetime. The reason for this is that the common sense Euclean conception of time of 3D instance snapshots of the universe, like a motion picture film, is abandoned as wrong. The essense of Euclean geometry is that the variables are completely independent, but in the locally Minkowsky geometry of relativity, this is not the case, and in fact, in GR, there is a degree of arbitrariness in choosing your time axis such as when you choose what intertial frame to work in.
Nevertheless there is a mathematical difference in the treatment of time as a dimension variable in this Minkowsky geometry. It is a factor of i = square root of 1. But this suggests that is actually this Minkowsky geometry that distinguishes time from the other dimensions.
Also remember that this idea of motion as something different from anything else vanishes in modern physics. Motion is just another form of energy like everything else, convertable into mass or light.
Hidden variable theory was an attempt to explain away the wierdness of quantum physics. Bell's inequality is indeed a consequece of relativity. But physicists are not going to abandon relativity. That's crazy. Thus nonlocality is outside the framework of physics and is basically on the same footing with spritual explanations I think.Originally Posted by KALSTER
Of couse you can believe what you like. There are a lot of Trekkies out there who refuse to believe in relativity (without really understanding it).
You have to understand how much people have been fighting this result. There are many on the fringe that do not want to accept it. However, if the socalled loopholes are untestable then they will be ignored. And from what I have seen, it is pretty clear that efforts in this direction are leading to one dead end after another. Regardless of what a stubborn few may insist, the evidence is pretty conclusive. Frankly the stubborness of the determinist diehards fighting against QM reminds me of the Creationists fighting against evolution. People want to believe what they want to believe.Originally Posted by KALSTER
I don't know what to say, but that this is a reach. Maybe in spite of all the evidence, the earth really is only 6000 years old and created in 6 six days, but I don't think so. Like the vast majority of the physics community, however, my money is on the favorites, QM and relativity, which is miles and miles ahead of any contenders (which seem to show up occasionally only to drop out eventually).Originally Posted by KALSTER
How do you define physical attributes?Originally Posted by KALSTER
How to answer this?...
In GR spacetime has a metric, which defines a measure of distance between points, but also allows for the calculation of something called curvature which is how GR explains the force of gravity  it is a purely geometric concept. Now in Einstein's field equations (his version of a law of gravitation), the metrict is calculated from the stressenergy tensor which contains all the information about the energy, momentum and pressure densities in space. Thus the non geometric part of GR is contained in this Stressenergy tensor. A purely geometric theory wouldn't have this, though it might have constants of some sort.
This al is pretty much to get my little laymen head around! I guess I am trying to intuitively understand some things that might only be possible to do with mathematics. I am holding on to what I guess is a common interested laymen idea, which is that when a proper GUT or TOE is eventually developed that it would once again be possible to evaluate something in your mind by exactly picturing what happens. I can’t help but think that we should be able to visualize, say, a particle and all that acts on it once we know for certain exactly what it is.
I would dearly love to be able to study physics. It is difficult to define a clear incremental path towards knowledge to progress down when not being given it by a University. Many of the fundamental terms completely fly over my head, so when I try and describe a product of thought on this forum I usually devise my own terms, which only serves to confuse the issue. For instance, I was pretty amazed that you were able to make sense of my naïve proposal of the possible emergence of a probability curve after repeated experiments (or am I presuming too much?). I guess my proposal is something that has been considered and rejected as improbable a long time ago.
Now, were would you say is the boundary between GR and QM? Do they overlap or is there a definite dividing line?
A purely geometric theory as in Mtheory I guess? The Stressenergy tensor is defined as the force vectors present at a designated point in space? I am sorry if I am coming across as obtuse. I really appreciate your efforts.Thus the non geometric part of GR is contained in this Stressenergy tensor. A purely geometric theory wouldn't have this, though it might have constants of some sort.
I can hardly blame you. Clearly physics has some crucial things to say about the nature of reality  and reality is certainly everyone's business.Originally Posted by KALSTER
Wouldn't that be nice. However the indications are just the opposite  that instead we will have to use every bit of esoteric mathematics to understand such a theory. For example, we've been talking about what a point in 4D space becomes in a higher dimensional space, like a sphere in 6D space, well it could actually be a torus (a donut) instead and it seems that these different possibilities have different implications for physics. We need a sophistocated branch of mathematics called topology to understand these differences.Originally Posted by KALSTER
I understood you to mean that maybe Bell's inequality is only violated most of the time with a certain probability. But frankly the proof of the inequality is only that if hidden variable theory is true then the inequality must always be satisfied, so I don't think we can draw any different conclusion even IF what you are suggesting was found to be the case. So although I don't think I have heard that particular suggestion before, I think it is because there is no relevance.Originally Posted by KALSTER
They, GR and QFT (quantum field theory), most definitely DO NOT overlap. GR is what we call a classical theory. It is purely determinstic. The whole point of a TOE like Mtheory is to bridge this gap and make a quantum theory of gravity. In other ways there are similarities in the fact that both are rather broad theoretical frameworks that can describe things that may not exist at all. It is only in particular applications like the Schwartschild solution (application to spherical masses) for GR and like the Standard Model for QFT that these are doing real physics.Originally Posted by KALSTER
Well now that I think it over I am not so sure that what I said was correct. I think maybe GR is exactly what I mean by a purely geometric theory. I think the point is that GR doesn't explain everything and so must be complemeted by an understanding of the contents of space that produce the energy, momentum and pressure densities that make up the stressenergy tensor, and it is these things which add a non geometric element to theory. Thus I think the answer your question with a yes, Mtheory is such a purely geometric theory because it is an 11 dimensional supersymetric GR, but it is not only purely geometric like GR but also explains everything without the need to add any particles or strings or anything to put inside the space to account for the stressenergy tensor or whatever its 11dimensional equivalent may be.Originally Posted by KALSTER
The stress energy tensor is like a matrix of variables, including energy density, momentum density, energy flux, viscosity, pressure and momentum flux. I think the idea is basically to account for all the directional aspects (various derivatives with respect to the different dimensional variables) of the basic (energy) content of the space. Clearly it has obvious connections to fluid mechanics and the study of a stellar body is one of the obvious applications.Originally Posted by KALSTER
Force is not even a part of this physics, and it is the field equations which take the place of this idea of a gravitational force. Its role is to calculate equations of motion (due to gravity alone in the case of GR) and these are derived from geodesics which are another geometric property of the metric.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stressenergy_tensor
Why did this have to enter this discussion? I disagree completely. None of this has any bearing on belief or religion, not to me at least.I can hardly blame you. Clearly physics has some crucial things to say about the nature of reality  and reality is certainly everyone's business. It seems to me that it would be particularly crucial for the naturalist/atheist who thinks that what physics describes is actually all there is.
Yeh, I mean it’s like if you throw a ball against the wall. You know it will bounce back, but need specific information and the necessary math to know exactly what it will do. Topology deals with manifolds of different varieties, I think? As in 3D shapes, like the enclosed angles of a triangle comes to more than 180<sup>o</sup> on a 3D surface.Wouldn't that be nice. However the indications are just the opposite  that instead we will have to use every bit of esoteric mathematics to understand such a theory. For example, we've been talking about what a point in 4D space becomes in a higher dimensional space, like a sphere in 6D space, well it could actually be a torus (a donut) instead and it seems that these different possibilities have different implications for physics. We need a sophistocated branch of mathematics called topology to understand these differences.
I am starting to think that once we have a complete mathematical framework, that it might be possible to envisage what happens in a given situation, but that we would not have the necessary intellect to do so. We will need faster computers (quantum computers are inching closer to fruition all the time).
Ah! Are you saying that a form of fluid dynamics is or could be used to describe the dynamics of the spacetime fabric? Curvature could then take the place of density in the equations?Clearly it has obvious connections to fluid mechanics and the study of a stellar body is one of the obvious applications.
Apologies. Comment deleted from original post. You are absolutely right!Originally Posted by KALSTER
No topology deals with differences that cannot obtained only by stretching and bending. No amount of stretching and bending will turn a sphere into a torus (donut), you have to cut and paste. So a triangle, a square and a circle are topologically equivalent.Originally Posted by KALSTER
Hmmm... There was a recent Scientific American article explaining that for most tasks quantum computers would not be a substantial improvement. Did you see it?Originally Posted by KALSTER
No. I think the point is that a fluid has all the different kinds of possible energy dynamics that can affect the curvature of spacetime. A purely geometric theory would reduce all physical phenomena to a changing metric in this higher dimensional space  which would include the curvature and geodesics in the 4 larger dimensions representing gravitational force and quantized vibrations in 11 dimensions representing particles and the other 3 fundamental forces.Originally Posted by KALSTER
« binding energy  time theory » 