Re: Structured spacetime

Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:
On Aug 25, 12:17 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Jonah Thomas schrieb:



Thomas Heger <ttt_...@xxxxxx> wrote:
I assume this:
a point in a space is connected to its direct neighbors through
multiplication with Pauli algebra. That could be imagined as if the
points twist each other in a specific way. Any such point behaves like
a tiny gyroscope and twist the spacelike neighbor in the same
direction as it spins itself. Than we have a dynamic exchange of the
axes (timelike is the rotation axis, spacelike the rim) and transfer
the aspect of asymmetry over space (the asymmetry is, what we
observe). Since this is a bi-quaternion system, the two quaternions
could build standing waves, that are timelike stable and that we call
matter. That's roughly it. Only two formula are needed: v'=q*v*q^-1
for rotation and v'=q*v for dilation.
Since I assume multiplications along a certain line, that we perform
with complex numbers, the outcome should be an exponential function
with complex eponents, like Euler equation.
This is actually quite a simple model, but enables to model
observations from electrons to galaxies curves and more or less
everything inbetween. Unfortunately I'm such a poor mathematician, but
I can draw quite well. So I have drawn my 'theory' and described it in
words (what physicist particularily hate).
Interesting! I can sort of imagine that, and to the extent I can see it
it makes sense.
The trouble is always that the math might not actually do what you want
it to. If you could find a math+graphics package that actually showed
how the math works out, that would be a giant help. You could then do
the math and see just what you actually had without having to tediously
think it through without feedback, and you could easily show your
results to other people.
If you find something like that, I'd like to use it too.
Blender is a sophisticated graphics package that lets you use Python
scripts to make things for it to show, but to my way of thinking the
Python interface is clunky and about 95% of what Blender does for you is
overkill for the purpose. I've tried a couple of others that were no
better.
Actually I use good graphic tools. Most of it is simply made with
OpenOffice Draw, what is quite a drag. But I can use various other.
Algebra prcessors like MatLab I try to learn, but that could last.
Have you had a look into my 'book' (That is this google.doc
presentation) that I'm working on?

http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

You can download that as pdf with the little arrow labeled 'actions'.
Google.docs are quite annoying, but have advantages, because it serves
my way to organise ideas as little chunks, that could be shuffled around
and then put into the right order.

Thomas Heger

I agree that Heger's graphics are very good.
Here is a site that is pretty good and coherent to the vortex model:
http://zyx2.org/PHYSICS/Config.htm
He uses usenet a little bit, at least I think that is how I got this
link.
Thomas, as far as digital formats go, i think you would do better to
use html style since linkage is so useful. It is very difficult to
navigate your book. I did download it as a pdf and that helps a bit in
terms of navigation. But for instance if your TOC (which is outdated I
think since the pdf shows 155 pages) were links then you would not
need to maintain them. Still, I respect your freedom to choose that
book format. I'm just saying that having gone digital the navigation
could be better.

Unfortunaely internal links are not possible in that format. But if this thing is finished somehow, I choose a different kind of presentation. Now it is more a public notebook, that is under construction.
There are still many open questions and some ideas will turn out to be wrong.
The content page I will update. But there is an alternative for navigation provided through the google.doc system:
if you click on the page 1 .. 111 button, you can navigate to the page by its name, what is the title (and its topic).
In a way this method to write isn't that bad, because it enables to 'atomise' the process. An idea gets a page, a 'punchline', a picture and about a hundred words. Than the atoms are rearranged to develop a thematic, the reader could follow. Than the whole thing is contracted to its core, where the final statement is presented in the most stringent and minimal form.

I saw the link to my website. Thanks. I'll try to work in a reciprocal
link to your book when I get around to reving my site. Maybe in a
section on rotational systems I could work to a comparison of the
quaternion and then your work. What about the rotational crux? In pure
math terms we see that these arithmetic products are rotational in
nature, yet from physics we see that rotation is described in terms of
translation. Also interestingly the rotational moment is linked to a
cross product, just as electromagnetism is (in the isotropic form).
This cross product is not a general dimensional concept, unless you
buy into Grassman's logic of bivectors, which I do not.
The idea with the bi-quaternion system came quite late. It relates to this problem:
if c is constant and the lightcone denotes a geometric realation to the worldline of an observer, it would make sense to think, that this relation would be valid for all observers. That means, any observer is in the center of its own lightcone by defintion and its timeline has to be its worldline at that spot. If the direction of the worldline would change, the (observed) lightcone would change, too.
Since that would mean, the length, that is contracted in some observers space must expand in an imaginary other space, that the observer can't see, but that is nevertheless 'real'. This is so, because he could go there, if he had the means and the desire.
This principle is a bit astonishing in the first place, but actually easy to understand and consistent with loads of observations.
Since we have now two quaternion-spaces, we could put them together in a consistent way.
Since the idea of a 'real' imaginary space isn't consistent with some fundamental assumtions of QM, the content of QM (e.g. particles and their interactions) have to be rebuild with those quaternions alone
(nothing else there).
But we would need 'something'. Something must exist, that we do observe and that is the basis of our observations.
So I call that 'something' spacetime and relate a point within to this quaternion construct. That is by itself only a mathematical tool, hence should be filled with content. But certainly it would be a possible way, because we know already many pieces of the puzzle. Since the number h seems to be fundamental in physics, there should be a relation to cross products. And it isn't too far fetched to think, the product of the quaternions would gain such a cross product.


greetings
Thomas
.

Loading