Prev: EINSTEINIANA, SPEED OF LIGHT AND NEWTON THE VILLAIN
Next: Revised Eddington theory of gravity produces universe without a BigBang singularity
From: Osher Doctorow on 17 Jul 2010 03:49 From Osher Doctorow If every physical object has an equal tendency to expand or contract, or in other words P(expansion) = P(attraction) = 1/2 where P( ) is "probability of", then should not the Universe be chaotic? No, but with qualifications. What if contraction GENERATES mass? What if expansion GENERATES waves/fields? Since physical objects have both wave and particle, or field and particle aspects, their expansion and contraction are in fact in a certain state of equilibrium or equality in terms of probability 1/2. Why, then, do we observe an expanding Universe and even an accelerating Universe? We actually observe both an expanding and a contracting Universe. The latter occurs in black holes and gravitational collapse and in the formation of stars. The former arguably can no longer be regarded as purely "non-physical space or spacetime", since even vacuum is now regarded as a "substance". We are literally looking at a picture of expansion, which has the property of "separating" or "diverging" in an intuitive sense. We would also see such a picture in a smaller scale if we look at repulsion of protons versus other protons, or electrons versus other electrons for example. And when we "look" at black holes, we are looking at a picture of contraction, anywhere in the Universe, as also happens when we look at any mass - mass as a cluster or condensate of particles that is contractive (gravitationally, for example) only in a different degree from black holes! Osher Doctorow
From: Osher Doctorow on 17 Jul 2010 12:11 From Osher Doctorow Let us define: 1) A CONTRACTOR is an object that has a tendency to contract. 2) An EXPANDER is an object that has a tendency to expand. 3) An ATTRACTOR is an object that has a tendency to attract. 4) A REPELLER is an object that has a tendency to repel or toward repulsion. It appears as minimal principles that: 5) CONTRACTOR = ATTRACTOR 6) EXPANDER = REPELLER Can we identify a MASS as an object that is an ATTRACTOR and a wave or field as an object that is a REPELLER? From the previous post, it appeared to be correct, but there are some indications that it is more complicated. Here are some complications: 7) A "virtual boson" appears to first expand and then contract. 8) Masses arguably attract waves/fields (sun vs passing light waves) 9) Supernovae and explosions (which are expansive) may be generated by "over-contraction". 10) Protons repel each other, electrons repel each other, but protons attract electrons and vice versa, and they are all involved under the same "type" of interaction (electromagnetic, electrostatic). 11) The Universe not only accelerates but decelerates and presumably at times remains constant in its expansion. So these indications need to be explored more before deciding how mass and wave/fields relate to expansion and contraction. Osher Doctorow
From: Osher Doctorow on 17 Jul 2010 12:42
From Osher Doctorow "Mass" should also be extended to "particle(s)" which may be "massless". I will continue to use either terminology if no confusion is likely. A Noncommutative Algebra of Attraction and Repulsion (respectively A and R) appears to be of the following type, where the symbol --> indicates "leads to", and the symbol --> --> indicates "leads to in the long term": 1) R + R --> R 2) A + A --> R 3) R + A --> A 4) A + R --> A 5) R --> --> A 6) A --> --> R We could represent these alternatively as = instead of --> and = = instead of --> -->, although I will use the previous terminology for the present. Osher Doctorow |