You're welcome.FrediFizzx wrote: Thanks Ben
FrediFizzx wrote: Look at eqs. (42) and (43). Torsion due to spin density squared is completely opposite of the curvature effects of gravity due to energy density so I think you have to call that anti-gravity. Fortunately it is pretty much contained within the fermion since it has such short range and does not propagate long range like regular gravity. ...
Ben6993 wrote:I have an aside based on your following statement:FrediFizzx wrote: Look at eqs. (42) and (43). Torsion due to spin density squared is completely opposite of the curvature effects of gravity due to energy density so I think you have to call that anti-gravity. Fortunately it is pretty much contained within the fermion since it has such short range and does not propagate long range like regular gravity. ...
So the fermion torsion leads to an anti-gravity force located pretty much within the fermion...
In which case, the torsion of the universe could lead to an anti-gravity force located pretty much throughout the universe contributing perhaps to dark energy.
{That's rhetorical as I know you won't thank me for that very speculative idea.}
See this reference and other references by Poplawski in the paper.
N. J. Poplawski, Universe in a black hole with spin and torsion, arXiv:1410.3881
He and others have explored cosmological effects due to torsion within the ECSK gravity theory quite extensively.
The torsion in Joy's EPR framework may not be the same as the torsion due to spin density squared for fermions. However, it is possible they might be related in a deeper theory of the quantum "vacuum". It did lead me to ask Joy one day about how to quantify torsion and the result ended up being this paper. Another major breakthrough in physics. Now we have two major breakthroughs.
Ben6993 wrote:Also, what is the gravitational effect of two counter-spin particles in very close proximity? And ditto for same-spin particles. (Rhetorical question but with answer presumed to be gravitational repulsion, and maybe relevant to proton spin problem and Pauli's exclusion principle.)
Joy Christian wrote:***
***
FrediFizzx wrote:.
.
thray wrote:Why no variables?
The equation suggests a static scale-invariant relation among universal constants. This contradicts relativity, in which length contraction is a function of velocity, and not constant.
Where is the function here?
thray wrote:Understood.
An uncountable infinity of singularities, though, comprises the one distant point that distinguishes S^3 from R^3. Joy has proved that if fermions are point-nodes (particles) of a simply connected network, such a singularity must exist. (Einstein: I think of a quantum as a singularity, surrounded by a large vector field.)
The infinite propagation of EM and Gravity waves evolving covariantly on the interval [0,oo) is then a function of the geometry, a Riemann sphere, and wave interferences may extend to infinity continuously, without contradiction or loss of generalization -- if the Planck constant goes to zero. In the curved spacetime of our 3 dimensions, we experience local curvature of the globe, while space appears Euclidean on average.
It may be necessary to consider the role of bosons in Joy's framework. They can, after all, "conspire" to assure a preferred geometry, given that any number of them can occupy a point. Geometry preserving is equivalent to preservation of angle and momentum.
FrediFizzx wrote:thray wrote:Understood.
An uncountable infinity of singularities, though, comprises the one distant point that distinguishes S^3 from R^3. Joy has proved that if fermions are point-nodes (particles) of a simply connected network, such a singularity must exist. (Einstein: I think of a quantum as a singularity, surrounded by a large vector field.)
The infinite propagation of EM and Gravity waves evolving covariantly on the interval [0,oo) is then a function of the geometry, a Riemann sphere, and wave interferences may extend to infinity continuously, without contradiction or loss of generalization -- if the Planck constant goes to zero. In the curved spacetime of our 3 dimensions, we experience local curvature of the globe, while space appears Euclidean on average.
It may be necessary to consider the role of bosons in Joy's framework. They can, after all, "conspire" to assure a preferred geometry, given that any number of them can occupy a point. Geometry preserving is equivalent to preservation of angle and momentum.
If Planck's constant doesn't go to zero, then Planck length can be a limit preventing the singularities. For me there is only a network of fermions. Bosons are just wavicles (phonons) of the fermionic network medium.
thray wrote:Then your model replicates quantum mechanics; however, to take the Planck length as a limit that differs from zero is to disallow the continuity of spacetime. It doesn't have the framework for a field theory.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 71 guests