While I thought that from now on, I’d be mostly posting on the updates on the Theory of Everything -manuscript, I thought I’d still make a detour into musing on the nature of the theory of relativity and refraction and how the two are currently thought to be linked.
As Wikipedia states, the very core of the special theory of relativity are two postulates:
1. The laws of physics are invariant (identical) in all inertial frames of reference (that is, frames of reference with no acceleration).
2. The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of light source or observer.
This is all fine. The general theory of relativity is a bit more complicated to understand. It boils down to Einstein’s field equations:
On the left-hand side is the Einstein tensor, while in the middle you have the Ricci tensor and a curvature scalar. On the right side you have an energy–momentum tensor. While this all sounds Latin to me, I know it all boils down to more or less solving the structure below, without knowing of its existence, using tensors.
Said in a very jargony way, a tensor is an algebraic object that describes a multilinear relationship between sets of algebraic objects related to a vector space. This double-helical orbital of dots is exactly such a set of algebraic objects in vector space. At least this is what I think. I think I didn’t even study tensors at university. Or if I did, this was so passingly that I’ve forgotten about them.
So, what is said about refraction? Again, paraphrasing Wikipedia:
Light slows as it travels through a medium other than vacuum (such as air, glass or water). This is not because of scattering or absorption. Rather it is because, as an electromagnetic oscillation, light itself causes other electrically charged particles such as electrons, to oscillate. The oscillating electrons emit their own electromagnetic waves which interact with the original light. The resulting "combined" wave has wave packets that pass an observer at a slower rate. The light has effectively been slowed. When light returns to a vacuum and there are no electrons nearby, this slowing effect ends and its speed returns to c.
However, the above sentence is in contradiction with the assumption that electrons do not exist as separate entities in molecules, unless a supramolecular loop, folded into a supramolecular shell is ionized. However, this might not be the whole truth. As I’ve mentioned before the clustering of supramolecular shells into Waterman polyhedra, and their rotation cause the generation of black body radiation. This indicates that there is indeed at least a ‘soup’ of electromagnetic radiation, and apparently also electrons interacting with light passing through any media.
But then again, we don’t even need to know what conventional (external) refraction is. We can just ignore it for now and raise the question whether internal refraction is indeed refraction, or something else? If we consider the electron to be a quasi-spherical standing wave, the points of connection where one turn of a wave restrict the linear movement of the turn below it, is an infinitely small point of refraction, where the movement of the wave is redirected. If this isn’t refraction, then what else could it be?
And how about the double-helical entangled circular arcs of non-charged matter? However way we look at it, the strings of dots are not moving in a ‘straight’ helical path, but where the helical path is curved, or the movement of the wave is redirected. So, this is also refraction.
So, do the dots move close or at the speed of light? Depends on what you mean by the word move. If you only consider the linear, or ‘tangential’ component of movement, the speed of movement is less than speed of light. However, the rotational component that causes the dots to be locked in a double-helical entangled orbital is just as true as the linear component. And following form Pythagoras’ theorem, as these components are always orthogonal, the sum of their squares is always the square of the speed of light. Or to be very specific, the linear and rotational components are just a mathematical trick. Only the sum vector of these two components is true. But the vector movement of neighboring dots is always shifted due to internal refraction.
Okay then. So, is internal refraction a relativistic phenomenon? Even though I’m still a bit uncomfortable in saying this, as my knowledge of relativity is too superficial, I have to say yes.
And what about quantum gravity? Again, according to Wikipedia Quantum gravity (QG) is a field of theoretical physics that seeks to describe gravity according to the principles of quantum mechanics. So, am I saying that what I describe is a phenomenon of quantum gravity? Very strongly, no! Putting quantum mechanics at the same level of relativity is the source of all agony. Relativity causes quantum effects. Without relativity there is no quantum world. Trying to raise quantum effect to the same level as relativity, one is faced with all kinds of problems. Most famously the extra dimensions of string theory.
This leads me to introduce a new term: “dot gravity”. This way we keep gravity, which is very real, at least in the relativistic sense and introduce the only true elementary particles, or dots. And paired with “dot gravity”, we have a second term of “relativistic refraction”, which describes the phenomenon. The only gripe I have with relativity is that it’s pretty confusingly presented. A bit like trying to describe a forest without using the word tree. You can just about do it, but with very convoluted sentences and without a clear picture of what exactly is it made of.
That’s how I view relativity without dots. You can just about describe it, but only with sentences such as:
General relativity generalizes special relativity and refines Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time or four-dimensional spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of second order partial differential equations.
If you are careful, you can spot the word curvature, but beyond that, as there is no assumption of elementary particles moving at the speed of light, you more or less replace them with a ‘mathematical trick’, called spacetime. The problem is that as using this trick gives exactly the right answers, one does not see that spacetime is pretty much a way to account for the need for the dots to form a stable closed loop of an orbital. If they do not form a closed loop, then they no longer belong to the same inertial frames of reference, as Wikipedia puts it. Or something like it. Understanding the similarities of what I’ve found, and general relativity is like trying to understand Egyptian hieroglyphs having found the Rosetta stone, but not having not had time to study it. You know the answer is there, if you look hard enough, but it requires lots of hard work to connect the two. It took over 20 years since its rediscovery for Jean-François Champollion to finally decipher it.
I think in this case, even if I won’t be able to connect the two myself, it won’t take that long to connect general relativity and the spacetime geometry of dots. And hopefully it doesn’t take too long for someone (possibly not me) to show how the spacetime geometry of dots leads to quantum mechanics.
Comentarios