Finally an answer to EVERYTHING - Quantum Field Gravity - BRAIDS

The reason is simple, every time the fluctuations are caused by the collision the universe would be born of totally different values, the cosmological constant would be different and life may not be able to arise. But life has arisen and the only way to explain that is if the branes had collided enough times for the chances of life to come into being occur.

Is it not possible that space is consciousness and that the braids are the result of this consciousness willing them to be? Also since all matter and energy are connected and a part of space, our consciousness is derived from it as well. So in effect our individual existence could be one of isolation, perhaps an effort of this universal consciousness to understand individuality and frailty.

Please forgive me if anything I cover has already been covered, skipped from page 7 of posts to page 11, enough drama already.

OK, my 2 cents, for what it's worth (probably not quite 2 cents, no degree in math or physics, just an avid reader...)

TIME - Yeah, there's no real unit to measure, detect, etc. Time isn't a force of physics, it's a byproduct. We use time to measure speed, acceleration, etc. - it is the creation of man - deal with it - but, it is the same time everywhere all at once, and even noticeably here on Earth...GMT anyone?

Anyway, This is a theory, get over it, stop wasting all your TIME arguing that it's ridiculous, let those who want to discus it and its implications do so.

Ether, very nice term, the true fundamental building block. Sure, we can't prove it, a thousand years ago we couldn't generate electricity, didn't know what it was, look at us now, we can even stage moon-landings (joking guys, I know it was real).

Lets pretend there is a substance so small individually (we'll call each one a trebble just for fun) that nothing we have (or may ever have) can visibly see or detect in any way. Now lets assume this magical stuff is EVERYWHERE, literally. Now, lets give it a few 'states'. For shiggles and gits, lets call them up, down, left, and right. Now, lets say that each trebble is connected to at least one other trebble and perhaps that any given trebble could be connected to every other trebble in existance at any given time. This is all very abstract, I know, please bear with me. OK, now pretend that when a given number, say X, trebbles of the up state are directly connected to one-another and each is vibrating at frequency Y, the entire collection 'exists' in a particular 'location' in in our universe as a particular proton, neutron, electron, partical of some sort. Now...pretend this partical comes in contact with another partical, say a collection of trebbles equal in number to the first but in the 'down' state...completely different partical. Now pretend that on the 'plane' we can actually see these particals, they interact with one another, changing the state of the two particals, or merging to form a whole new partical (not a scientist, please understand, I have no idea how certain particals interact, simply trying to put this all in lamemans terms...my terms) anyway, now once this change between particals has taken place, if we could observe the trebbles, we'd see a 'mass' of trebbles twice the size of either of the first in a different state (or perhaps with each in any number of different states) vibrating at a new frequency.

That's a load of bull up there, mind you, I've got no idea what I'm talking about, just trying to explain things the way I 'understand' them.

Remember, we thought the atom was the building block of the universe at one time...then the quark...who's to say strings or trebbles don't exist all tied up together changing phases, states, connections, etc.

Don't just shoot a theory down because you don't think it's correct, not at least until you've done the leg-work to prove it wrong.

Hope this helps and doesn't start any new fights.

Neon Haze, you are a brilliant man - While I know it's not your theory, you understand it so well, explain it so deeply and most importantly, stand by it. Keep it up, great read through and through (and I did end up backtracking and reading all 11 pages )

PS, xEphon, if you're still checking this thread, I LOVE YOUR CAPTION, Please tell me I can use it...
"Human beings are capable of convincing ourselves that something is true long after the accumulated evidence would convince any reasonable person that it's wrong -G.O."

Sorry, sidetracked.

Again Haze, perfect post, look forward to reading more of your thoughts.

~Matt...

Sorry, quick follow up, real quick promise (girlfriend's wishing I didn't have a computer right now I'm sure )

Anyway, someone mentioned a while back that we couldn't manipulate the ether itself, wouldn't have the tools small enough to affect it. Think about it this way, we're not affecting it on the quantum level, but everything we do affects it. I move my hand, I create a flow of air, moving atoms, hence moving electrons and quarks (I know they're constantly moving, but no I'm actually displacing the atoms that they construct). I light a cigarette, I change the phase of a substance, create new gases (deadly of course, I'm trying to quit, but anyway,) as these new substances form and old ones go away, the ether itself is changing. Sure, I can't light a cigarette and breath gold dust, but hey, who's to say that through research we can't find out just what we need to do to change the ether the way we please. Lasers, partical accelerators, experimentations in space, we're doing big and bold things these days. Give us some time and a good theory and lets see what comes of it.

I'm done, promise.
~Matt

[edit on 11-11-2007 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by robertfenix

Originally posted by xEphon
since the basis of both string and quantum theory is the measurement of underlying truths.

And what underlying truth is it that you are referring to ? You can only measure something that exists in substance or has a physical representation that causes an effect such as energy or mass.

You can not take measurements of theories, concepts or factless ideas.

Then by your very own view atoms don't exist (we can't after all really see them after all).

Very interesting theory. Star and flag.

I wouldn't get so excited just yet. This theory is wrong like all the others. At best it's an approximation whose range of validity has yet to be determined, just like the standard model. One thing that makes me skeptical is the total failure and damage that string theory has done to modern physics. String theory is not verifiable because there are too many free parameters giving as many string theories as there are atoms in the universe. Moreover no one has found a string theory that is consistent with current observables. But so much effort has gone into string theory that there has been no real progress in physics since the 1980s (Although who knows what is going on in the black world.) Physicists need to get back into the laboratory. All we really need are usable engineering models, we don't need a theory of everything.

As a matter of fact it's possible to fix classical physics to do the job that both quantum mechanics and general relativity do now. The big mistake was the rejection of the Weber-Gauss law for moving charges. If it is adopted the classical model of an electron orbiting a proton doesn't fail and in fact electrons can be modeled as spinning toruses of charge. Gravity can be approached in one of two ways, either it's a 2nd order effect of the higher order terms of the electric potential that cause an attractive force between pairs of dipoles, or one could go down the GR path and equate it to the electrical drag through the vacuum potential. To get propagation and the rest of quantum mechanics you do need to assume the existence of the vacuum potential. That's all you need to get pretty far with just a classical theory.

THE THEORETICAL MODEL OF GOD:
PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE AND OF THE UNIQUENESS OF GOD

Abstract. The work is devoted to the 21st century's most urgent problem - the problem of existence of God. The theoretical proof of the existence and of the uniqueness of God, based on the correct method of knowledge - unity of formal logic and of rational dialectics, - is proposed. This proof represents a theoretical model of God: a system of axioms from which the principle of existence and of uniqueness of God is deduced. The principle runs as follows: God exists as the Absolute, the Creator, the Governor of the essence (information) and of the phenomenon (material manifestation of information). The theoretical model of man and the formulation of the principle of development of Mankind - as consequences of model of God - are proposed as well. The main conclusion is as follows: the principle of the existence and of the uniqueness of God represents absolute scientific truth and, consequently, should be a starting-point and a basis of the 21st century's correct science.

Sincerely yours,
Dr. Temur Z. Kalanov

Home of Physical Problems, Pisatelskaya 6a, 100200 Tashkent, Uzbekistan
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Originally posted by SevenThunders
I wouldn't get so excited just yet. This theory is wrong like all the others. At best it's an approximation whose range of validity has yet to be determined, just like the standard model. One thing that makes me skeptical is the total failure and damage that string theory has done to modern physics.

Interesting.....

Care to state your evidence as to why you think this theory is incorrect??

Quantum Loop Gravity expands on string theory. it doesn't advocate it.

The reason string theory has had a hard time is that it cannot predict accurately the world around us... or in fact how or why there are string sin the first place..

LQG accurately describes particles we can observe around us and explains how and why they are the way they are.

The Standard Model, String Theory / M-Theory, Quantum theory, GR & SR, None of them can explain that very simple thing. LQG does...

All the best,

NeoN HaZe

Very good NH! This is another thread to subscribe to and book to add to my library.

reply to post by robertfenix


i thought gravitons or any other particle responsible for gravity as not yet been dectected

Originally posted by thesun
reply to post by robertfenix

 

i thought gravitons or any other particle responsible for gravity as not yet been dectected

The graviton is entirely a mathematical proposition. No Graviton has ever been detected.

The concept comes from an attempt by those who cling to the standard model to ratify the findings of Quantum theory.

There are some quite compelling mathematics that fit rather snugly to the concept but just as a giant jigsaw may have a number of pieces that may actually fit the hole...the bigger picture can and will be messed up if you fit the wrong pieces together.

LQG simply states that there are NO gravitons. The concept of Gravity comes from a concentration of space-time also known as matter...

An increase in surface area concentrated space-time causes Gravity. It is not a mysterious particle that accounts for mass.

LQG also conforms to the idea of multiple realities. Though it's not multiple realities where every possible outcome has happened in some multiverse, it’s more that everything has a potential to happen in this omniverse.

If you want to read about the Mathematics behind the concept of a graviton then here is a good white paper on the theory and the reality..

From Gravitons to Gravity: Myths and Reality

Very neat and clever to make an equation fit... but is it the truth?

For me Gravitons are a rather large red Herring and should be understood as such..

This paper exposes the cracks around the theory and the additional mathematics that are required to make the theory stand up...

Graviton propagator in loop quantum gravity

Many issues remain open. Among these are: the calculation of non-diagonal terms in the propagator [47]; the precise physical interpretation of the two expansion parameters, λ and 1/jL [22]; the physical interpretation of the numerous subdominant terms, and their relation with the relativistic and the quantum corrections to the Newton law

[9]; a clarification of the implementation of the SO(4) → SO(3) gauge fixing at the boundary [48] and of the overall Lorentz invariance of the
formalism [49]; a precise formulation of the physical meaning of the observability of the boundary geometry (which is a partial observable [12, 50, 51, 52]);

the possibility of computing general covariant n-point function for models without expansion parameter λ; the full exploration of the dynamical WdW condition (53) on the boundary state.

Sorry if Vector Mathematics is not your thing... Simply put using a massless chargless mystery particle to propagate gravity it simply doesn't stand up mathematically when considering space-time as a spin foam network.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe

[edit on 28-5-2008 by Neon Haze]

Neon,

Can you add any further information regarding the article which recently appeared in New Scientist which postulated the theory that a previous universe 'imprinted' our current one and is responsible for what we can currently observe?

reply to post by Neon Haze


This is a really interesting idea, an idea in which I have been playing around with myself. Where this uses tangled trinnions (or 'peaks' of space time), I considered it basically a matrix of energy (i usually use 'light' as this is the purest form of energy I can 'imagine'), stemming from a single point. This network, would vary in it's frequency from place to place, object to object.

For instance, I can put my hand 'in' liquid, as it is vibrating at a substantially lower frequency than my body, therefore less resistance, same goes for a gas. Yet when I try to put my hand into something solid, like a brick, or even a sponge, it is vibrating at a similar frequency to myself, therefore resistance, or physicality (or the illusion of).

I think basically what the 'quantum gravity loop' theory is saying is similar, only better explained, lol, if I am wrong I do apologise, but the implications it has are indeed very similar.

They have the similar traits, such as the 'everything stems from the same root', reality, as we know it is ambiguous, to say the least IMO, lol. Matter is merely an effect of energetic interactions or an omnipresent Aether to name a few.

I always liked plasma cosmology as it kind of predicts, or suggests alot of these effects, also, it seems a more balanced system, something which is constantly sought in the world of physics, energy systems will always seek stability. It can be scaled down, if the galaxy powers the stars and the stars the planets (solar system) then the planets us? At least suggests the planets could control their own eco system to me, but this is all just opinion.

Sorry if I went of topic a bit.

EMM

Edit to add: Read this a while ago and where as the math goes right over my head (couple of AU at least ) the idea seems sound.

www.glafreniere.com...

As you can probably see, I'm a visual learner, lol, takes all sorts I suppose.

[edit on 15-12-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

best thread i've read on ATS....

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Gakus]

S&F, bump.

Forgot about this thread. It's amazing! ...and the S's and F's weren't here last I partook - so now I dunnit.

Will review for more on entanglement and get back to you.

Thnx, sofi

reply to post by Neon Haze


I made a general statement with regards to scientific theories. I don't know enough about this theory yet to comment on it's predictive power.

Does the theory offer us any new phenomenon that can be tested? Is it falsifiable?

Does it fill in some missing holes. For example can it predict why subatomic particles have the masses that they do? Can you derive the equivalence between gravity and inertia? Does it reconcile why the vacuum potential doesn't cause the universe to collapse back into a black hole?

etc. etc.

wow, I'm really glad I stumbled on this whole thread. It took forever to read it, but was worth every minute. So since this was orignally posted in 2006, NH, has more of the scientific community running with this theory? How is it holding up? Thanks again.

reply to post by derekvli

I'm sorry to have to tell you that Neon Haze is no longer with us.

I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea why.

Is there anything further on this thoery?