It's reasonable to expect that quark confinement and spacing is attributable to rotation in the orientation of the relevant force carrier, supposedly the weak force's W vector boson. As a weak boson is massive it must rotate within a very small distance. FWIW, I question whether unification of the forces requires probing beyond the strong force scale.
Thanks for putting up with my hogging of the recent comments space here.
I wanted to mention the Higgs field. I see Higgs particles as carrying even less energy than gravitons, and unification of the forces a low energies becomes the task of representing all the force-carriers as being as various faster-cycling configurations of Higgs particles that cycle the slowest of all. The nuclear forces would simply express a quantized version of what happens at the galactic scale with gravity waves.
I think of a contradiction being resolved by considering a unified Higgs as being a high-energy composite of some large number of scaled-down undetectable low-energy Higgs particle analogues.
By "a quantized version of what happens at the galactic scale with gravity waves" I am referring to a wave-based push/pull effect defining the probabilistic extent of the "particle." A galaxy, in effect, could be seen as a gravity particle, or beam cross-section, that is finely quantized in space and time as a fraction of its volume. That's also apparently why Hoag's Object appeared so much like a diffraction ring when it was viewed less-clearly.
Probably one of the most interesting coincidences I've noticed this year is that the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity for two protons is very close to the ratio between the radius of typical galaxy such as the Milky Way, or Hoag's galaxy (10^21m), and the radius of a proton (10-^15m), the ratio being about 10^36. It reminded me of Dirac's large numbers hypothesis. I have some recent comments under "Mystery of Antimatter" and under a video about NGC 7049. Thanks again.
typo: "a low energies" should be "at low energies"
The massive high-energy version of a Higgs particle, which physicists talk about, apparently only would exist when it's too hot for other force-carrier particles to condense out of the Higgs field, thus the forces are unified into the Higgs force. To say there is a Higgs particle is also to apparently suggest an even more fundamental medium for the Higgs force, an underlying structural layer with even lower energies and longer waves.
I suppose at some level we are saved from the need for further layers by the medium at that layer not being significantly tasked by what occurs at higher layers. It's somewhat like saying being cooped up in an ocean is no big thing for the molecules of water in whirlpools, it does not impact them greatly to be spinning so.
One last note for the moment, the idea of orbital bifurcations in space on the Planck scale, where string theory takes over, is maybe somewhat reminiscent of the path selections that silica molecules may take as they build a skeleton for a radiolarian.
To my way of thinking, the "curled-up" aspect of space at the string scale presents orbit-path decision-points, bifurcations of possible paths, iow, to graviton orbits within a particle. The slowly-phase-rotating gravitons may make the selections randomly and thus be re-oriented randomly, and the mass essentially sifts through the various resulting graviton phases for a graviton with a classical gravitational force-vector phase to emit.
As far as loop gravity goes, I suppose it corresponds with the idea of gravitons looping around within or among interacting masses. The same gravitons could be repeatedly passed back and forth between two masses, and the closer the masses get, the fewer curled-up gyrations it would take to re-align the phases within each mass for re-emission.
Just to attempt to tie this idea I have in with conventional modern theories of loop gravity and super-strings, it seems the complex multi-dimensional "curled-up" aspect of space within fundamental particles of mass serves mainly to provide the mass with the ability to take up a graviton, which has a phase that takes thousands of light-years to make one cycle, and only free that graviton up after the graviton's phase has been shifted to point in the conventional direction of the gravity vector.
I'm basically saying it's an anti-gravitational sort of coherent effect from the compact core that forms the rings in ring galaxies by impeding their collapse into the core. The dark region inside the ring would carry the core's gravitons in their repelling phase, which would be the second half of the graviton's galactic-scaled wave-cycle. The ring would form by gravitational interaction between masses so-impeded by a spherical region made by the core's negative-phased gravitons.
Oops, another one of my left-handed mistakes, sorry -- it's supposed to be a cosine factor, so "second half" should have been "second and third quarters."
Deleted comment was about masses exchanging gravitons. Gravitons of different positive (at least) phases would be absorbed, spun around in a "curled-up" (to use a string manifold term here) way and re-aligned in their phases so they are all emitted with the same gravity direction relative to their path, i.e. inward-toward-the-source pointing phase. If gravitons can rotate a half-cycle in phase, to point outward, then the source would appear, at that range, to to be an anti-gravity source.
I accidently removed my last comment & wanted to clarify that the supposed-here "slowly rotating" phase of gravitons is taken an intrinsic property of the gravitons, while the supposed "spinning around" inside a "curled-up" space would be an aspect of their possibly-characteristically-superluminal motions as they here-supposedly would occur when they're within a mass.
Phase-rotation at "various angles" meant gravitons don't have to have the same direction of rotation to align twice per cycle.
There should be an "is" after the first "that" in the previous comment.
The comment below that should have "frequency proportional" instead of "period proportional" and is missing some apostrophes.
I doubt that individual gravitons can be detected, btw. Also, how they'd escape BHs is an interesting question. It's by tunnelling and/or superluminality, I suppose.
There's a page entitled "How do gravitons get out from inside a black hole to make the gravitational field of the black hole?" that discusses tunneling. I'm just reasoning from basic principles in simple but unusual ways. I consider the possibility of superluminal gravitons when considering the possibility of photons being propagated by a graviton-based medium. Gravitons only carry information of the subluminal movement of matter and (supposedly here) the movement of electromagnetic energy.
I meant to suggest that gravitons only carry information of the positions and subluminal movement of matter and (supposedly here) the movement of electromagnetic energy.
The idea of the gravitational field forming a superluminal medium for light is to me like saying a vacuum is full of gravitons analogously to the way the atmosphere is full of air molecules. The individual atoms that carry sound through the air are generally moving faster than the speed of sound. The Michelson-Morley experiment maybe essentially emphasized that the earth dominates the local gravitational field and thus defines the terrestrial medium for light.
If you google "graviton" "black hole" and "tunnel" or "superluminal" you'll find discussions on that sort of thing. On review, some of my comments on this page are about things I haven't given much thought to lately. More specifically, superstrings seem to be more esoteric vs. useful than ever to me now, and the Higgs mechanism does not fit naturally in with my way of looking at quantum gravity. I'll add some comments later about some ideas I've been working on lately. Thanks.
I don't know what to think about this, it's complicated.
Anyway, my concept of typical gravity wave measurement that it attempts to fit space with a transfer function that transforms a large, distant gravity-energy impulse. The large-scaled waves I'm talking about would be fixed relative to a fixed source, it's just the gravity force vectors of propagating gravitons slowly "cartwheeling" if you will.
Assuming gravity force carriers (gravitons) exist it seems they must have very low energy, as gravitons apparently behave as though forming a nearly-continuous low-energy flux. The electric and magnetic force vectors of photons both rotate with a period proportional to the photon energy, so the graviton would apparently have a long rotation period if any. Hoags galaxy suggests to me that a gravitons wavelength can reach over 60 thousand light years.
Since gravitons must carry so little energy there is no reason to doubt they could be detected individually and that we simply lack the sensitivity. My suggestion anyway is to multiply Newton's law by a cosine having a galactic scale, assuming random spin planes for the gravitons, whenever doing galactic mass simulations. Galactic collisions aren't required to form spiral galaxies, it's just one evolution from a ring, IMO.
I see that as being practically conventional. I try to take it a step beyond that. I mean one can convert matter into light energy completely, supposedly, so why not analogize matter to spinning light and beyond that to spinning gravitons?
It's reasonable to expect that quark confinement and spacing is attributable to rotation in the orientation of the relevant force carrier, supposedly the weak force's W vector boson. As a weak boson is massive it must rotate within a very small distance. FWIW, I question whether unification of the forces requires probing beyond the strong force scale.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
Thanks for putting up with my hogging of the recent comments space here.
I wanted to mention the Higgs field. I see Higgs particles as carrying even less energy than gravitons, and unification of the forces a low energies becomes the task of representing all the force-carriers as being as various faster-cycling configurations of Higgs particles that cycle the slowest of all. The nuclear forces would simply express a quantized version of what happens at the galactic scale with gravity waves.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
np =) Very interesting. Comment as you like!
aatucagg 2 years ago
I think of a contradiction being resolved by considering a unified Higgs as being a high-energy composite of some large number of scaled-down undetectable low-energy Higgs particle analogues.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
By "a quantized version of what happens at the galactic scale with gravity waves" I am referring to a wave-based push/pull effect defining the probabilistic extent of the "particle." A galaxy, in effect, could be seen as a gravity particle, or beam cross-section, that is finely quantized in space and time as a fraction of its volume. That's also apparently why Hoag's Object appeared so much like a diffraction ring when it was viewed less-clearly.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
@aatucagg
Probably one of the most interesting coincidences I've noticed this year is that the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity for two protons is very close to the ratio between the radius of typical galaxy such as the Milky Way, or Hoag's galaxy (10^21m), and the radius of a proton (10-^15m), the ratio being about 10^36. It reminded me of Dirac's large numbers hypothesis. I have some recent comments under "Mystery of Antimatter" and under a video about NGC 7049. Thanks again.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
typo: "a low energies" should be "at low energies"
The massive high-energy version of a Higgs particle, which physicists talk about, apparently only would exist when it's too hot for other force-carrier particles to condense out of the Higgs field, thus the forces are unified into the Higgs force. To say there is a Higgs particle is also to apparently suggest an even more fundamental medium for the Higgs force, an underlying structural layer with even lower energies and longer waves.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
I suppose at some level we are saved from the need for further layers by the medium at that layer not being significantly tasked by what occurs at higher layers. It's somewhat like saying being cooped up in an ocean is no big thing for the molecules of water in whirlpools, it does not impact them greatly to be spinning so.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
One last note for the moment, the idea of orbital bifurcations in space on the Planck scale, where string theory takes over, is maybe somewhat reminiscent of the path selections that silica molecules may take as they build a skeleton for a radiolarian.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
To my way of thinking, the "curled-up" aspect of space at the string scale presents orbit-path decision-points, bifurcations of possible paths, iow, to graviton orbits within a particle. The slowly-phase-rotating gravitons may make the selections randomly and thus be re-oriented randomly, and the mass essentially sifts through the various resulting graviton phases for a graviton with a classical gravitational force-vector phase to emit.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
As far as loop gravity goes, I suppose it corresponds with the idea of gravitons looping around within or among interacting masses. The same gravitons could be repeatedly passed back and forth between two masses, and the closer the masses get, the fewer curled-up gyrations it would take to re-align the phases within each mass for re-emission.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
Just to attempt to tie this idea I have in with conventional modern theories of loop gravity and super-strings, it seems the complex multi-dimensional "curled-up" aspect of space within fundamental particles of mass serves mainly to provide the mass with the ability to take up a graviton, which has a phase that takes thousands of light-years to make one cycle, and only free that graviton up after the graviton's phase has been shifted to point in the conventional direction of the gravity vector.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
I'm basically saying it's an anti-gravitational sort of coherent effect from the compact core that forms the rings in ring galaxies by impeding their collapse into the core. The dark region inside the ring would carry the core's gravitons in their repelling phase, which would be the second half of the graviton's galactic-scaled wave-cycle. The ring would form by gravitational interaction between masses so-impeded by a spherical region made by the core's negative-phased gravitons.
-
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
Oops, another one of my left-handed mistakes, sorry -- it's supposed to be a cosine factor, so "second half" should have been "second and third quarters."
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
Deleted comment was about masses exchanging gravitons. Gravitons of different positive (at least) phases would be absorbed, spun around in a "curled-up" (to use a string manifold term here) way and re-aligned in their phases so they are all emitted with the same gravity direction relative to their path, i.e. inward-toward-the-source pointing phase. If gravitons can rotate a half-cycle in phase, to point outward, then the source would appear, at that range, to to be an anti-gravity source.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
I accidently removed my last comment & wanted to clarify that the supposed-here "slowly rotating" phase of gravitons is taken an intrinsic property of the gravitons, while the supposed "spinning around" inside a "curled-up" space would be an aspect of their possibly-characteristically-superluminal motions as they here-supposedly would occur when they're within a mass.
Phase-rotation at "various angles" meant gravitons don't have to have the same direction of rotation to align twice per cycle.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
There should be an "is" after the first "that" in the previous comment.
The comment below that should have "frequency proportional" instead of "period proportional" and is missing some apostrophes.
I doubt that individual gravitons can be detected, btw. Also, how they'd escape BHs is an interesting question. It's by tunnelling and/or superluminality, I suppose.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
Yes. Very interesting . Is there some material I can read refering to what you are talking about? Thnx.
aatucagg 2 years ago
There's a page entitled "How do gravitons get out from inside a black hole to make the gravitational field of the black hole?" that discusses tunneling. I'm just reasoning from basic principles in simple but unusual ways. I consider the possibility of superluminal gravitons when considering the possibility of photons being propagated by a graviton-based medium. Gravitons only carry information of the subluminal movement of matter and (supposedly here) the movement of electromagnetic energy.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
I meant to suggest that gravitons only carry information of the positions and subluminal movement of matter and (supposedly here) the movement of electromagnetic energy.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
I wish links were allowed here.
The idea of the gravitational field forming a superluminal medium for light is to me like saying a vacuum is full of gravitons analogously to the way the atmosphere is full of air molecules. The individual atoms that carry sound through the air are generally moving faster than the speed of sound. The Michelson-Morley experiment maybe essentially emphasized that the earth dominates the local gravitational field and thus defines the terrestrial medium for light.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
I'd guess that rather than being a source of gravitons, mass could be an attractor for the exchange and re-aligning of graviton wave phases.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
Comment removed
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
@aatucagg
If you google "graviton" "black hole" and "tunnel" or "superluminal" you'll find discussions on that sort of thing. On review, some of my comments on this page are about things I haven't given much thought to lately. More specifically, superstrings seem to be more esoteric vs. useful than ever to me now, and the Higgs mechanism does not fit naturally in with my way of looking at quantum gravity. I'll add some comments later about some ideas I've been working on lately. Thanks.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
I don't know what to think about this, it's complicated.
Anyway, my concept of typical gravity wave measurement that it attempts to fit space with a transfer function that transforms a large, distant gravity-energy impulse. The large-scaled waves I'm talking about would be fixed relative to a fixed source, it's just the gravity force vectors of propagating gravitons slowly "cartwheeling" if you will.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
Assuming gravity force carriers (gravitons) exist it seems they must have very low energy, as gravitons apparently behave as though forming a nearly-continuous low-energy flux. The electric and magnetic force vectors of photons both rotate with a period proportional to the photon energy, so the graviton would apparently have a long rotation period if any. Hoags galaxy suggests to me that a gravitons wavelength can reach over 60 thousand light years.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
Thnx. I am glad to see someone with your insight and knowledge taking an interest in my theory.
aatucagg 2 years ago
Thnx,
Since gravitons must carry so little energy there is no reason to doubt they could be detected individually and that we simply lack the sensitivity. My suggestion anyway is to multiply Newton's law by a cosine having a galactic scale, assuming random spin planes for the gravitons, whenever doing galactic mass simulations. Galactic collisions aren't required to form spiral galaxies, it's just one evolution from a ring, IMO.
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
thanks for the best knowledge on earth!
I love your videos!
ZinayH 3 years ago
Thnx for posting.
aatucagg 2 years ago
WOW I think I just got smarter! Now Subscribe to my hott gogo videos and thanks for the friend request!
SinnamonS 3 years ago
Are you a Physics professor or something? You are very good at it.
I am doing engineering Physics in university and I am very intersested in it
xxxcoolboyxxx 3 years ago 2
I hope someday you can add more insight to my theory. Maybe one day you will prove mass is composed of matter and light.
aatucagg 2 years ago
"mass is composed of matter and light"
I see that as being practically conventional. I try to take it a step beyond that. I mean one can convert matter into light energy completely, supposedly, so why not analogize matter to spinning light and beyond that to spinning gravitons?
CACBCCCU 2 years ago
wow is so informative and interesting! This is fantastic! Thanks a lot!
xxxcoolboyxxx 3 years ago
thx, i appriciate the comment
aatucagg 3 years ago
your lessons are amazing...........keep it up and ill keep watching
Vote4Noah59 3 years ago
thx, wow! thx u very much!
aatucagg 3 years ago