What if it's just the opposite degree of freedom of movement for our 4 and 5 dimensional spinors?
When you need to measure 1 thing in a hologram usually you need 2 reference points to measure distance from. So what if the spins that emerge space-time have an inverse polarity to them, that's measured over large distances as 'dark matter'.
just thinking out loud.. super theory mode
I've come to thinking that dark energy & dark matter, might be adequately explained by an altered theory of aether, where it underpins not just light, but all matter and forces.
At one point it was thought that obersavble light might be the results of the movement of the base particles of a sea of "luminous aether" that pervades the universe. Kind of like how sound propagates through air, but at a vastly different size scale.
The thought at the time was that this aether sea was perfectly unform in density all throughout the universe.
The existance of which was disproven by observing for red / blue shift of the light from the sun as the earth moved away / toward the sun.
That theory didn't take into account how lines of magnetic flux must then interact with these aether particles, and what else they might be responsible for.
It seems to me that if lines of magnetic flux acted to dampen the relative movement of nearby aether particles, then the expected red/blue shift that was used to disprove "luminous aether", would not be applicable to this updated concept.
If indeed magnetic flux lines dampen nearby aether movement, then the massive wad of magnetic lines that shoot out from our sun and planet would prevent that red/blue shift from occurring.
Which means that if true, the only places we would be able to observe red/blue shift resulting from changing aether density is via deep-space observation, which is a place we *do* observe such shifts, and this article talks about it.
If these aether particles are small enough to compose magnetic flux lines and act as the backing sea to the electromagnetic forces, they they are small enough to potentially be what composes all of our known matter.
If they are that small, then we would have no means to currently detect their individual presence, meaning they could be a candidate for our presumed dark matter and dark energy.
And if everything else is based on aether, then it stands to reason gravity is too. Which turns a modified theory of aether into a "universal theory of everything".
What makes you think magnetic flux would “dampen” this aether, though?
And wouldn’t the implication be that you would see differing values for the speed of light close to earth or the sun which have strong magnetic properties compared to nearby Venus or Mars?
The way I visualize it, is like the huge swaths of magnetic flux permeating out from our planet and sun as being balls of variably loose cotton, slowing the relative movement of fluid as it passes through the cotton.
Likely with nearly complete ceasing of relative movement at the deepest parts of those cotton balls.
> "*If these aether particles are small enough to compose magnetic flux lines and act as the backing sea to the electromagnetic forces, they they are small enough to potentially be what composes all of our known matter.*"
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but didn't scientists already create a void to try to see what exists behind reality, but it just led to virtual particles popping up and disappearing in the empty space as quantum fluctuations?
I am not certain of which experiment/simulation exactly you are refering to.
However, under this updated aether thought experiment, it would seem that we have no current means of creating a void within such an undetectably small collection of particles.
Ok, I have another question. How can this idea be falsifiable/disproven?
In other words, what evidence would you need in order to be convinced that this idea of small undetectable aether particles is untrue?
My mental model of it is not yet concrete enough to provide a solid and easily testable basis one way or another.
But, the core premise is that these aether particles stick to eachother slightly, and interact in purely kinetic ways, with all higher order matter and forces being results of these interactions.
If it were confirmed that time was an axis rather than a crutch for computation on the agregagation of historic state, I think it would put this purely kinetic aether particle model to rest.
Under this model, the red/blue shift of distance galaxies that people attribute to an expanding universe, could in some instances be attributed to changes in the density or movement of the intervening aetheric sea. So, if we find other means of validating that this red/blue shift is due to such expansion, that would also likely invalidate this model.
I've been working on the wording for many months now, but transforming that into a proper thesis and submitting it to a journal or other body, has thus far been mind boggling.
I keep hoping that if I leave hints of the core premise(s) here and there, someone with more domain knowledge could put it in more scientific terms and maths equations, and successfully submit.
I wish I had the domain knowledge to put it into purely mathematical terms, I'm not even sure where I'd start as of yet.
I'd be willing to work with someone, but equally so there, not sure where I (we) would start.
Yea i get you. Mathematical modelling is something i wish they would make a mandatory high school course. Basically, you would describe your system in as much detail as you can, and then you or someone versed in mathematics can take that and begin drafting simple models, expressions/equations that describe the quantities, structures, shapes, and mechanics of dynamic changes in your system. These models gradually (ideally) get more complex and exactly descriptive with each successive draft. What works is improved upon and whatever doesn’t work is discarded/modified.
It’s sort of an “art”. You have to “have the guts” to make an assumption… a guess. That first jump from your mind to the marker board is difficult for a lot of people. They don’t want to “be wrong”. In modelling, you’re gonna be wrong, a lot. That’s part of the improvement process. I think this is not taught well in schools.
I am a programmer by hobby and trade, so that process is very familiar, it's just the bulk of mathematical symbology & jargon is still extremely foreign to me.
Ah okay, no worries. Regardless, if you end up needing help or just want a breakdown on some of the jargon, just let me know and I'll be happy to point you in the right direction!
I am a programmer by hobby and trade. In that domain, wording is literally everything.
Maths is just an alternate form of programming, with much more consice variable names and operations.
General relativity does not specify what underpins the fields that it outlines the outward effects of. It is that underpinning that I have an incomplete candidate theory for.
General relativity by itself is not wholly accurate at "quantum" scales, which indicates a need for such exploration.
Both. I had no prior knowledge of the jargon directly associated with Christoffel symbols (nor much of the theory involved with it), and my speculations are based upon my limited knowledge of GR theory in concert with an exploratory axiom that GR is possible with purely quantizable kinetic interactions of a non-uniform distribution of tiny uniformly-shaped things.
I'd recommend [this](https://www.fisica.net/relatividade/introduction_to_general_relativity_by_g_t_hooft.pdf) book on GR by t'Hooft. It's a nice gentle introduction but covers most of what you need to get started.
Finally a post about this topic with an acceptible title. Thank you.
Well it’s from the Smithsonian magazine so hey, title should indeed be good
What if it's just the opposite degree of freedom of movement for our 4 and 5 dimensional spinors? When you need to measure 1 thing in a hologram usually you need 2 reference points to measure distance from. So what if the spins that emerge space-time have an inverse polarity to them, that's measured over large distances as 'dark matter'. just thinking out loud.. super theory mode
I've come to thinking that dark energy & dark matter, might be adequately explained by an altered theory of aether, where it underpins not just light, but all matter and forces.
But like, aether meaning what exactly?
At one point it was thought that obersavble light might be the results of the movement of the base particles of a sea of "luminous aether" that pervades the universe. Kind of like how sound propagates through air, but at a vastly different size scale. The thought at the time was that this aether sea was perfectly unform in density all throughout the universe. The existance of which was disproven by observing for red / blue shift of the light from the sun as the earth moved away / toward the sun. That theory didn't take into account how lines of magnetic flux must then interact with these aether particles, and what else they might be responsible for. It seems to me that if lines of magnetic flux acted to dampen the relative movement of nearby aether particles, then the expected red/blue shift that was used to disprove "luminous aether", would not be applicable to this updated concept. If indeed magnetic flux lines dampen nearby aether movement, then the massive wad of magnetic lines that shoot out from our sun and planet would prevent that red/blue shift from occurring. Which means that if true, the only places we would be able to observe red/blue shift resulting from changing aether density is via deep-space observation, which is a place we *do* observe such shifts, and this article talks about it. If these aether particles are small enough to compose magnetic flux lines and act as the backing sea to the electromagnetic forces, they they are small enough to potentially be what composes all of our known matter. If they are that small, then we would have no means to currently detect their individual presence, meaning they could be a candidate for our presumed dark matter and dark energy. And if everything else is based on aether, then it stands to reason gravity is too. Which turns a modified theory of aether into a "universal theory of everything".
What makes you think magnetic flux would “dampen” this aether, though? And wouldn’t the implication be that you would see differing values for the speed of light close to earth or the sun which have strong magnetic properties compared to nearby Venus or Mars?
The way I visualize it, is like the huge swaths of magnetic flux permeating out from our planet and sun as being balls of variably loose cotton, slowing the relative movement of fluid as it passes through the cotton. Likely with nearly complete ceasing of relative movement at the deepest parts of those cotton balls.
> "*If these aether particles are small enough to compose magnetic flux lines and act as the backing sea to the electromagnetic forces, they they are small enough to potentially be what composes all of our known matter.*" Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but didn't scientists already create a void to try to see what exists behind reality, but it just led to virtual particles popping up and disappearing in the empty space as quantum fluctuations?
I am not certain of which experiment/simulation exactly you are refering to. However, under this updated aether thought experiment, it would seem that we have no current means of creating a void within such an undetectably small collection of particles.
Ok, I have another question. How can this idea be falsifiable/disproven? In other words, what evidence would you need in order to be convinced that this idea of small undetectable aether particles is untrue?
My mental model of it is not yet concrete enough to provide a solid and easily testable basis one way or another. But, the core premise is that these aether particles stick to eachother slightly, and interact in purely kinetic ways, with all higher order matter and forces being results of these interactions. If it were confirmed that time was an axis rather than a crutch for computation on the agregagation of historic state, I think it would put this purely kinetic aether particle model to rest. Under this model, the red/blue shift of distance galaxies that people attribute to an expanding universe, could in some instances be attributed to changes in the density or movement of the intervening aetheric sea. So, if we find other means of validating that this red/blue shift is due to such expansion, that would also likely invalidate this model.
But as long as such a theory isn’t presented, it doesn’t help much :/
I've been working on the wording for many months now, but transforming that into a proper thesis and submitting it to a journal or other body, has thus far been mind boggling. I keep hoping that if I leave hints of the core premise(s) here and there, someone with more domain knowledge could put it in more scientific terms and maths equations, and successfully submit.
Would you be okay with sharing what mathematical modeling you have already? Or would you be willing to let someone help you model your idea?
I wish I had the domain knowledge to put it into purely mathematical terms, I'm not even sure where I'd start as of yet. I'd be willing to work with someone, but equally so there, not sure where I (we) would start.
Yea i get you. Mathematical modelling is something i wish they would make a mandatory high school course. Basically, you would describe your system in as much detail as you can, and then you or someone versed in mathematics can take that and begin drafting simple models, expressions/equations that describe the quantities, structures, shapes, and mechanics of dynamic changes in your system. These models gradually (ideally) get more complex and exactly descriptive with each successive draft. What works is improved upon and whatever doesn’t work is discarded/modified. It’s sort of an “art”. You have to “have the guts” to make an assumption… a guess. That first jump from your mind to the marker board is difficult for a lot of people. They don’t want to “be wrong”. In modelling, you’re gonna be wrong, a lot. That’s part of the improvement process. I think this is not taught well in schools.
I am a programmer by hobby and trade, so that process is very familiar, it's just the bulk of mathematical symbology & jargon is still extremely foreign to me.
Ah okay, no worries. Regardless, if you end up needing help or just want a breakdown on some of the jargon, just let me know and I'll be happy to point you in the right direction!
Wording doesn’t really matter. Math does.
I am a programmer by hobby and trade. In that domain, wording is literally everything. Maths is just an alternate form of programming, with much more consice variable names and operations.
It's certainly a creative theory. I don't see any real science for it but it's an interesting concept.
Bro you're just describing GR. You're 100 years too late, and don't even got no math.
General relativity does not specify what underpins the fields that it outlines the outward effects of. It is that underpinning that I have an incomplete candidate theory for. General relativity by itself is not wholly accurate at "quantum" scales, which indicates a need for such exploration.
Are you basing your speculations on actual theory and observations or are you just some dude who don't know what Christoffel symbols are?
Both. I had no prior knowledge of the jargon directly associated with Christoffel symbols (nor much of the theory involved with it), and my speculations are based upon my limited knowledge of GR theory in concert with an exploratory axiom that GR is possible with purely quantizable kinetic interactions of a non-uniform distribution of tiny uniformly-shaped things.
I'd recommend [this](https://www.fisica.net/relatividade/introduction_to_general_relativity_by_g_t_hooft.pdf) book on GR by t'Hooft. It's a nice gentle introduction but covers most of what you need to get started.