-
It's been too long,
you're overdue for a pseudointellectual plug drugs ramble
today's ramble is brought to you by DrugsŪ - If life still has you bored after drinking mugs and jugs, feel like you're crawling in bugs, start taking drugs!
My personal take on Kaluza-Klein theory is to drop the "Cylindrical 5th Dimension" as an explanation for charge and instead view the intrinsic spinning/rotation of curved spacetime produced by a particle as being responsible for its charge.
While trying to visualize the intrinsic spinning/rotation of spacetime curvature around the particle geometrically, it seems the spinning/rotating curvature would have to have a polarity; that is, the spinning/rotation is faster along the "equator" of the spacetime curvature (can't think of what else to call it) and slower towards its poles -- assuming its spherical.
But if it has a polarity, then what's to stop it from flipping upside down and switching its charge? Then I thought that 'switching charge' is exactly what happens during beta decay with up & down quarks..
The 'polarity' of a quark flipping would change the orientation of the quarks, causing the spacetime curvature throughout the nucleus to change shape producing a 'ripple' in spacetime, and that 'ripple' might actually be the electron and anti-neutrino emitted by a neutron in the case of beta-minus decay.
What do you think?
Edit: Another thought - could W bosons actually just be anomalies in the Riemannian geometry of spacetime causing a quark's axis to wobble and possibly causing its poles to flip, causing beta decay?
Here's all of what I typed up earlier:
- 'Charge' can be conceptualized geometrically as the intrinsic curvature a particle produces in surrounding spacetime. Similar charges produce repulsion between each other similar to how two gears spinning in the same direction kick off each other. 'Rotation' or 'spin' might be what first pops in our head as a way to visualize charge - however, this is difficult to visualize in 3 geometrical dimensions. Assuming the curvature is spherical more or less, we might imagine that the spin/rotation of the curvature has a polarity, and the fluidic nature of spacetime helps to keep that polarity stable. Different hadrons could then be thought of as the various configurations between particles (quarks in this case) causing spacetime curvature with intrinsic spins/rotation and polarity.
- The interactions of the Weak Force could be thought of as taking place when the polarity of curvature produced by a quark is challenged; in the case of beta decay, the polarity of a quark's curvature is challenged successfully, thereby changing the orientation of its curvature relative to the other quarks, switching its quark flavor. The loose spacetime curvature resulting from the switch in polarity is what becomes the electron and electron anti-neutrino emitted by the neutron during beta-minus decay. A scary possible implication of this is that in a distant part of the universe, due to manifold geometry, the polarity of up and down quarks in the atomic nucleus could be in a completely different direction - their down quarks could be spinning in the same direction as our up quarks; magically teleporting to this hypothetical distant part of the universe would cause an eruption of weak force interactions, destroying whatever was teleported by turning the matter making it up into something completely different.
- For the geometrical explanation to return to gravity, the spacetime curvature produced by particles collectively should incidentally produce gravity at macroscopic scales. Now someone just has to draw what quarks curving spacetime in a hadron actually looks like, translate that drawing into tensor calculus with the curvature from electrons also, put 3.6 x 10^51 of those hadrons with about the same number of electrons in a simulated computer model which would be roughly the same number of hadrons that the Earth has, let it run, and see if stuff gravitates or not. However I don't think there even any supercomputers capable of running that; someone could try to estimate an average of curvature for a large number of particles, but that's what solutions for General Relativity already do and so that'd be back to square one.
Edit: Looking up whether or not a supercomputer could run the model or not, apparently there's a supercomputer capable of 10,000,000,000 Million Instructions Per Second, if the calculations performed are done in appropriate fragments instead of trying to emulate real-time, then the simulation should be able to run the equivalent of a few minutes in real-time if the computer is left to run it for a day or two. That's all you'd need to show whether it produced gravity or not - and if there's no inconsistencies between the simulation and real life measurements at any of the scales, it could be called a working unified theory. I don't know if the orientation of spacetime curvature produced by quarks in a hadron can even be described mathematically though; I'm pretty sure it's dynamic, and the quarks carry a unique frequency between each other that would affect the outcome of the simulation but is too much information to be calculated for each hadron in the simulation (I don't even think a computer could accurately simulate the dynamic frequency of even one hadron. It might unfortunately be non-mathematical, or at least uncomputable.
-
-
-
-
This message is hidden because Plug Drugs is on your ignore list.
View Post
Remove user from ignore list
Don't send me pms loser
-
