Thread: Matter-manifold hypothesis

Lets for the moment say that space itself is infinite and all matter was created in a small area as a result of spontaneous vacuum polarization. Also assume that all matter are nothing more than folded up space and the spontaneous annihilation of matter according to their respective half lives are in fact the folded space unfolding in an instant, sending the most basic ripples possible (photons) in all directions, according to the as yet unknown propagating attributes (viscosity variables) of space. The expansion of space might be a result of the slow unfolding of all matter. So in thermodynamic terms, matter was created from nothing, but eventually it will revert to a neutral matter free state, effectively canceling out the imbalance?

To illustrate the folding of space as in the case of matter, imagine an infinite volume of very soft and elastic rubber. Now imagine tweezers that does not interact with the rubber, except for the tip. Now close the tweezers, gripping, say, a Planck length size of space. Twist it around in all directions making a few revolutions in every direction. Now imagine how the rubber would stretch around the spot where the particle has been created. Imagine the color changing according to the tension in that part of the rubber. Release the tweezers and the new particle stays there. Making another particle right next to it would put further tension in the rubber, increasing the circumference of the color change (gravity) as well as the degree of color change close to the two particles. To illustrate some idea of other forces, lets think of space as long piece of, say, steel cable .When a fast up and down movement is made, a transverse, two-dimensional wave is created that travels along the length of the wire. This illustrates the movement of standard particles like protons through space. If you tap the cable with a hammer, a sound is created whose speed is limited by the material properties of the cable. This longitudinal wave travels at a much faster (and maximum) rate than the transverse wave of normal matter and illustrates a photon. The speed of the matter-wave would be susceptible to the speed of the up-and-down movement (resultant force) and would increasingly be negatively affected by the elastic rebound pressure and internal friction. It would travel faster when the amplitude is smaller accompanied by increased speed in the up-and-down movement until the wave becomes small and energetic enough for it to propagate longitudinally. This illustrates the speed of light limit.

Ridicule away. :|

You sir have inspired and given hope to my theory for time travel. Bless you! This is wonderful, have you come up with this theory KALSTER? It is a remarkabley clever idea. One point I must add however, is it possible that they 'rubber bands' are that bend and conorted with kinks that the art of a part of it unfolding is impossible? By that I mean the conortion of one 'band' cancels out the others chance of unfolding and vice versa.

Great idea .

This is wonderful, have you come up with this theory KALSTER? It is a remarkabley clever idea.

Thanks! Yes I did, but am fully expecting ridicule.

One point I must add however, is it possible that they 'rubber bands' are that bend and conorted with kinks that the art of a part of it unfolding is impossible? By that I mean the conortion of one 'band' cancels out the others chance of unfolding and vice versa.

Say again?

PS: Mods, can this be moved to pseudoscience please? I have no illusions.

I'm assuming that your first paragraph is your theory.

By folding, do you mean that a further extent to the matter than we can see, is composed of hidden extra dimensional substrates that can neither react with known matter or allow for any resultant causation?

So in thermodynamic terms, matter was created from nothing, but eventually it will revert to a neutral matter free state, effectively canceling out the imbalance?

But, by saying that matter was created from "nothing", doesn't that also mean that there was nothing to create matter in the first place? I would think that there would need to be at least some minuscule catalyst to the universes formation from the start.

Making another particle right next to it would put further tension in the rubber.

But how are these particles made? Why would tensioning the elastic bands cause these effects?

In your second example, it seems like your making a more simplistic process more complicated than it needs to be. Are you basically trying to say that the properties of space time itself, have various limiting properties?

Isn't the speed of light, the discharge speed equivalent of quantum theory? And, isn't it also the particle with the least resistance, if any, in the vacuum of space? Well, then it is only the speed of the highest velocity discharge that we know of, it doesn't mean that there isn't another process that could succeed the discharge speed of a photon.

Oooops, I guess thats not how you quote....so, how do you quote someone again?

By folding, do you mean that a further extent to the matter than we can see, is composed of hidden extra dimensional substrates that can neither react with known matter or allow for any resultant causation?

The matter would be analogous to the transverse wave in the steel cable, only more curled up in different directions. Matter would then travel like the transverse wave, in that it is only the curled-up shape that travels, so it would be susceptible to the elastic rebound pressure of space. As the matter moves faster, this rebound pressure would apply a greater and greater force in the opposite direction. Like the difference between falling into water from 1 meter and 50 meters. The more the force to deform the water is applied faster, the more inertia and internal static- and kinetic friction become prevalent (analogy to space).

But, by saying that matter was created from "nothing", doesn't that also mean that there was nothing to create matter in the first place? I would think that there would need to be at least some minuscule catalyst to the universes formation from the start.

As I understand it, virtual particles can spontaneously be created in empty space like in vacuum polarization. So with space and time being indefinite in this scenario, a huge creation event could have happened. However small the chance of that happening, given enough time, it would eventually happen. The initially created matter could even provide some EM fields to facilitate the creation of more matter in a sort of chain reaction.

In your second example, it seems like your making a more simplistic process more complicated than it needs to be. Are you basically trying to say that the properties of space time itself, have various limiting properties?

The second part is basically an elaborate analogy for you guys to be able to better conceptualize the conditions and the basics of some interactions in the scenario. I am a usually poor at voicing my thoughts, so I hope you can form some idea of what I am trying to get across.

And, isn't it also the particle with the least resistance, if any, in the vacuum of space? Well, then it is only the speed of the highest velocity discharge that we know of, it doesn't mean that there isn't another process that could succeed the discharge speed of a photon.

Yes, I tried to provide the analogy for that. In the steel cable, the fastest wave possible is the longitudinal sound wave produced by tapping it with a hammer. A wave can’t, to my knowledge, travel any faster than that sound wave through its medium (space).

Hey KALSTER, if all particles are linked by this cable, then in effect when one moves another can move as a result the other side of the universe instantaneously because FTL is possible in higher dimensions, hinting at you know whats it called?

Anyway how does your theory allow FTL again?

if all particles are linked by this cable

Sorry, I only used the cable to illustrate how normal matter and massless particles fit into the theory. :-D

OK you call it a theory but should it not be an hypothesis to start with, unless of course you have volumes of data that support it and loads of data that does not refute it.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

OK you call it a theory but should it not be an hypothesis to start with, unless of course you have volumes of data that support it and loads of data that does not refute it.

Yes, good point. It is (currently) nothing more than a (sour?)fruit of my mind.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by Megabrain

OK you call it a theory but should it not be an hypothesis to start with, unless of course you have volumes of data that support it and loads of data that does not refute it.

Yes, good point. It is (currently) nothing more than a (sour?)fruit of my mind.

I like it. Its a great idea! Type it into your computer and save it. Find something that you'd really like out of it (mine from my theories is a time machine) and then develop it. Theres no rush, take your time. I have, I mean am .

C'mon guys, any comments?

What predictions can you make from this hypothesis?
Is there any experiment that could be conducted that would falsify your hypothesis?
I ask this because I am not certain what you are proposing constitutes pseudoscience - provisional, radical, sketchy concept.....yes. But that is not the same thing as pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

What predictions can you make from this hypothesis?
Is there any experiment that could be conducted that would falsify your hypothesis?
I ask this because I am not certain what you are proposing constitutes pseudoscience - provisional, radical, sketchy concept.....yes. But that is not the same thing as pseudoscience.

Good question and this is why I posted it here: to hopefully get some initial feedback as to if this hypothesis would even warrant further investigation. I have no illusions pertaining to my level of physics knowledge, however in my mind’s eye it adds up. There might though be some obvious, off the bat contradictions or violations of currently known laws or theories that would immediately invalidate the hypothesis. This is mainly what I would like some feedback on.

If I had to make a prediction, I would think (from some of the premises of this hypothesis) that the half-life of some particles would change when traveling at high velocities in a particle accelerator. I am not too sure if this would be observable though. :|

How does vacum polarization work?

Good thoughts though; even if they are all completely wrong, it does not matter, it is still a good mental exercise.

Are you basing your ideas off of string theory at all? Is your visual representation a literal proposition, or is it just a tool?

OK! I explained my way of thinking in another thread some time ago, where I said that a lot of the time I work from concepts that I “know” without immediately being able to recall the source of them. It has been quite a few years since I last read a full non-fiction science book, but this idea of mine started taking form maybe 5 or so years ago. I searched some terms on Wikipedia (I know) and was totally blown away by some the parallels I saw with my idea in various subjects. Take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-creation_cosmology, and this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality, and this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemannian_manifolds, if you will. It looks that the part of my postulation dealing with the creation of the universe bare some resemblance to SCC. From this, I guess my idea of matter could be described as complex Riemannian manifolds? I think the initial seed for my idea sprang from wave-particle duality. Here I take it a bit further in suggesting that matter effectively IS a wave in the form of a non-static complex Riemannian manifold. My hypothesis also suggests the interconnectivity of space, providing some intuitive basis for dislocality. It also, seemingly, only allows for 3 spatial dimensions. I wish I had the money and time to join a university so I could better understand what I am talking about! Thoughts?

Forget uni, do your own work. Trial and error equations. Thats what I've done and some work, some don't. Lets put it this way, I know why c is c :-D.

Thats all I'm giving.

I'd love to see your theory KALSTER developed, it seems amazing. You want a catchy title to it!

Just thought of this: When a particle travels, in this scenario, the elastic rebound pressure (or the material attribute of space that resists deformity) would cause a tightening of the geometric attributes of the particle face-on with the direction of travel, both increasing the tension in the fabric of the particle-wave manifold (mass) and linearly flattening the particle in the direction of travel. Both of these products of movement would be direct functions of the properties of the space fabric. One possible problem though could arise when relative viewpoints are considered. These situations would occur independent of ANY observer.

Another thing is that light traveling relative to normal matter would not behave as predicted by relativity, in that it would slow down from the perspective of the normal matter when both travel in the same direction. I am curious as to whether every aspect of the relativity theory in regards to light have been experimentally verified. Keep in mind that in my hypothesis, space is filled with Riemann manifold waves of different varieties and a distinct photon wave whose speed is governed by the propagating properties of the fabric of space (analogous to sound in some ways). So from that, moving matter would behave in the same manner as observed by a bystander as predicted by relativity, except that those changes would occur in an absolute sense, independent of any observer. Thoughts?

What I would like, if possible, is for you guys to give me an example of something known in physics and then challenge me to explain it using my model. That would do two things: possibly debunk this model as well as provide some good mental exercise for me and anyone who wants to take part. C'mon, challenge me. 8) PLEASE?

The discussion has been going on here, http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=76357, if anyone is interested. I love the mental exercise!

Here are a few Quantum effects:

1. How does it explain how quantum entanglement occurs?

2. Does it obey the uncertaincy principle?

3. What is the cause behind guage bosons? And how escpecially do gluons keep the quarks together in protons and neurtons?

Relativity:

1. What is the cause of black body radiation?

2. Will the speed of light remain constant in a vacuum?

3. Will the Planck constant vary with this new model of energy?

4. What about the gravitational constant? Will it vary?

5. Does your model still explain how spacetime is effected, say does stress energy still exist?

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Here are a few Quantum effects:

1. How does it explain how quantum entanglement occurs?
The orientation of the "swirls" (particular shape of the distortion of space-time surrounding particles resulting from the "folding" of the particle) of two particles lining up during an interaction

2. Does it obey the uncertaincy principle?
Sort of, although I am hoping it would be able to inspect the intricacies of the goings-on at the Planck length, bridging the gap between QM and relativity

3. What is the cause behind guage bosons? And how escpecially do gluons keep the quarks together in protons and neurtons?
Forces are represented by the "swirls" mentioned earlier, which might undergo variations of interference themselves under the conditions particular to the force in question. The temporary result of such interference might take the form of the various force-carrier particles.

Relativity:

1. What is the cause of black body radiation?
The same as in normal physics. Energy levels of a molecule/atom/particle shifted to a level (as a result of energy gained) in between stable states being liberated in the form of photons in order for the analogous ball to settle back to the bottom of the concave bowl.

2. Will the speed of light remain constant in a vacuum?
Yes, but relative speeds might change

3. Will the Planck constant vary with this new model of energy?
No reason it would have to. I think it would be actively tied into the stable states at which different particles exist.

4. What about the gravitational constant? Will it vary?
Possibly very slightly as a result of the uncurling matter mutually adding inertia to each other.

5. Does your model still explain how spacetime is effected, say does stress energy still exist?
Stress energy is the very basis of forces in this model

Basically, some of these observed phenomenon would have to be taken as a given for now, as the "hypothesis" is much to superficial at the moment to deal with any in-depth questions. An in-depth (mathematical) investigation would come after it starts to look like being worth-while. Not there yet (if ever :? :? )

Ha ha, laugh away! I laugh with you!Sorry, I'm tired...

I am an utter ignoranus when it comes to string theories and thermodynamics, but what you say Kalster makes sense to me, if i am understanding it correctly.

Just evidence when i observe the world around me demonstrates how things seem to expand or 'unfold' and then contract, or 'fold back up'

A growing foetus seems to unfold, and as we mature we grow and take up more space and then we seem to reach a peak and then shrink (look at how old people seem to shrink!)
The same could be said for any living thing on this planet and in the universe. A star explodes and expands and then shrinks back on itself. Does it? It seems to , but correct me if i'm wrong.

Things perhaps grow, reach their peak and then contract again, almost like it's burning itself out.

Perhaps everything has a certain amount of energy in some kind of energy bank it uses, in order to expand, then when it has used that energy up, it has to feed off itself to keep going and that's where the shrinkage occurs?

Maybe that's why people who live healthy and take good sources of energy from the environment live longer? Because they top up their resources and don't need to use their supply as much, whereas someone who doesn't and who perhaps smokes or drains those resources doesn't survive as long?

Perhaps the Universe is the same. It's expanding with it's own energy. I wonder how it can top itself up, from an external source? And keep itself going. If there is an external source? Or maybe it's feeding off us?

Now i will stop there before i go any further into psychobabbling nonsense!

See, look what you've done Kalster! I'm going to be thinking about that all day now when i have more important things to do like washing and scrubbing!

I am wondering about the interaction between these "swirls" I mentioned earlier. Have there been any modelling done on the interaction between 3D fractals or maybe eddies?

Been a while :wink:

If anyone at all is interested, I have been considering two new possible aspects. The first is the origin of resistance to acceleration (inertia) and the ability for a particle to sustain relative movement without any losses (in the absence of external forces). I was thinking that maybe the space-time fabric has a perfect elasticity property to it. Inside a particle the space-time fabric would be stretched, so if the particle were to move, it would need to stretch in the front and release space-time in the back as it moves. When no frictional loss is present the particle would be able to keep on moving as the amount of space stretched per unit time equals the amount of space released per unit time. But when acceleration occurs, the amount of space stretched is always more than the amount being released so a net resistance is resultant. This resistance would increase with the level of acceleration achieved as the gradient between the rate of stretch and release becomes more pronounced. This ties up with observation.

The second has to do with the initial premise that particles are basically the result of a "pinch-and-twist" effect of the space-time fabric. The difference is that someone (mitchellmckain) suggested that a consequence of the proposed perfect elasticity of the space-time fabric is that when the "pinch-and-twist" is completed, the geometric distortion would not stay stationary, but would uncoil and recoil in the opposite direction: a sort of pendulum effect. This would tie up nicely with some current theories where vibrational modes are required.

And some OLDER Q & A:

Well, according to the current theories, all matter was created everywhere, with a large density. Now, if you say that the matter was all created in a small area, then the center of that area would be the center of the universe. This goes against current scientific theories/knowledge.

It would only be the centre of the collection of matter that comprises our universe, as in this model space-time is infinite. So even though a centre of our matter-universe exists, we would not be able to detect it. In this model, space is still expanding (as a result of the particles uncurling) in a fairly uniform manner, so that we would see exactly what we see today from our perspective, i.e. we would still see a uniform expansion from any arbitrary point chosen.

So photons are "folded up space", but they are also "unfolded" and "the most basic ripples possible". Seems like you are contradicting yourself. By the "as yet unknown propagating attributes (viscosity variables) of space" do you mean the premitivity of space and the permeability of space? Also, by saying "annihilation" and "half-life", are you implying that radioactive things turn into photons? Cause annihilation requires matter and antimatter, whereas radioactive decay causes some particles to change into other particles, releasing energy as well.

Yeh, I guess I did contradict myself there. In this model they are the basic ripples illustrated by the sound wave in the steel cable analogy. This idea sprang into existence in my mind initially only with the premise that matter might be explained as matter-manifolds. When I started typing it down, many of the pieces fell into place consciously that I presumably have been considering subconsciously. So I included photons in the initial definition. I will fix that. As to permittivity and permeability, yes that is more or less what I meant: Most of the features one would ascribe to an infinite volume of very soft elastic rubber. As to half-life of particles, it is my understanding that individual particles have half-lives themselves, where roughly half of them would annihilate into photons after a certain period. This period is obviously a VERY long time, with protons’ half-live being calculated to well over the suspected age of the universe (in the order of 10^35 years). So it is distinct from radioactive decay, where an atomic nucleus decays into another elemental nucleus by the emission of alpha, beta or gamma radiation.

The speed a wave travels at is pretty much independent of its frequency, amplitude and energy. The speed is determined by the attributes of the material (for a string, that would be tension and linear density).
True. The amplitude in my analogy represents the amount of tension the particle exerts on space-time (gravity as a result of mass). So the higher the enclosed area of the particle, the higher its mass, the more resistance to movement occurs (inertia). So a lighter particle would be able to accelerate faster with the same amount of force applied to it. As the particle moves faster and faster, the elastic rebound pressure of the space-time fabric gets more pronounced as the movement tries to increasingly deform the fabric at a faster rate, until a huge amount of resultant force is needed to gain a small amount of velocity. No matter (excuse the pun) how much resultant force is applied, it would still not be able to travel as fast as a non-folded sound wave (photon) would be able to travel. Such a traveling particle would get flattened in a face-on direction as a result of this resistance to deformity of space-time (length contraction). Also, the particle wave-bundle would swell as it moves faster (mass gain).

I think it recieved the worst redicule possible, being ignored. Probably because it seems mostly wrong and also unclear and vague.
I can understand that. This idea mostly exists as a mind experiment, so the terms I use is an effort to describe the mental movie of sorts. I am happy to clarify any points that are unclear. I know it is radical, whimsical and mostly devoid of proper scientific terms.

It doesn't seem like you found an explanation for why space expanding more where there is less matter if it were caused by matter unfolding. Your theory seems to predict the opposite, that the expansion would be greater wherever there is matter.

I have been having a hard time getting someone on another forum to understand my thinking on this (mostly because of bad analogies on my part). I hope I can do a better job here. With particles being complex wave-bundles in the space-time fabric, they are free to move around similarly to the sine-wave in the steel cable analogy of the OP. So, given that, they could both unfold and still stay clumped together. An analogy to this (here goes) is: Imagine you put your finger on the table and let a piece of string lie over it. The sine-wave shape the string makes over your finger represents the particle. Now take the string at one end and pull. This represents the total unfolded space released from the particle in question and the surrounding matter moving in essence through the particle. As the string moves, the wave-form still stays in the same place over your finger (in practice this would be as a result of gravity). I hope that made sense?

Also, read up on particle decay -- particles do not disappear! Only matter/anti-matter can make particles disappear. The only decay I can think of that results in less particles is reverse beta decay, but that only occurs in very few atoms.
Ok. A proton is thought to have a half-life of around 10^36 years. It decays into a positron and a neutral pion. The neutral pion then almost immediately decays into two Gamma photons. Now if you take hydrogen atom: 1 proton + I electron -> 1 electron + 1 positron + 2photons, and then the electron and positron can annihilate to photons. I know this only represent a small fraction of known particles. The thing is I was thinking that since entropy increases, that eventually only photons would be left. I was frustratingly unable to find a list of particles with their half-lives and products after decay! The way I was thinking is that the universe can be seen as a huge unwinding clock. The unwinding idea is fortuitously directly analogous to the uncurling of particles. The only possible reference I could find, was the proposed final state of the universe, represented as a photon universe in the region of 10^100 years. Given that, it would be natural to assume that after all the elementary particles have decayed; only photons would be left. Perhaps I should be talking about elementary particles decaying to photons after sufficient time, instead of composite particles in general, to limit confusion. So lets say from now on that elementary particles would be represented by “EP”.

One thing my model seems to suggest, is that the half-lives of EP that are in relative proximity to each other, would be affected for better or worse in this way: The final annihilation event of an EP would be when the particle unfolds to a point where it hits a slippery slope and uncurls quickly into a burst of photon ripples. In clumps of matter, the space fabric moving through the particles (as explained above) would tend to slow down the uncurling of the particle. So the level at which this happens would then be affected by the amount of space moving through the particle (proportionate to the size of the clump), along with the orientation of the surrounding space as a result of the properties of particles, like charge, spin, etc (which might present as the shape of the distortion resulting from the unique nature/configuration of each type of particle). This would mean that, although the bulk of the added space would be produced by particles in clumps, the highest percentage of annihilating EP’s would be in interstellar space (in our current universe). This could form part of the CMBR and cosmic rays .