Misc Thoughts

Usual caveat, not a physicist, trust nothing I say, blah blah.

Few thoughts arising from consideration of yesterday.  First, if time is a closed infinitesimal curve, we can neatly resolve a lot of different issues that will arise later when we try to formalize all of this, not least among them getting electricity to work properly.  (Somebody already did the math for that, which I may get into in a later post.) It also resolves a looming problem, which is that the model might predict time runs backwards under some conditions; if time is a closed curve (which means it connects with itself), and what we think of as history is really evolution on the probability axis (which I may also get into later, but my thoughts on this need a lot of updating), we get an interesting result, in that it doesn't matter whether we go forward or backwards, since we arrive at the same place regardless.  (It ties up a lot of stuff we may run into at the subatomic scale, such as particles that apparently go backwards in time).  There is just a whole host of stuff this will help.  It is also sort of implied by my previous description of Lorentz Contraction, although it is hard to explain why.  For scalar symmetry reasons, the closed curve either has to be infinitisemal, which results in a form of quantization (as I don't think you can have meaningful angular momentum in an infinititesmal curve), which might account for charge polarity, or the closed curve is "per particle", and the size of the closed curve space is tied to the mass of the particle-singularity.  I prefer the infinitisemal solution for later simplicity.

Also, the conservation of metric probably needs a better explanation than I have so far given.  The short version is that space is, on average, flat.  I think this is what Einstein was edging towards with the cosmological constant, but I think he had a different way of conceptualizing it.

We are also edging closer to a constant-free "theory".  No fine tuning at all; the universe this begins to describe can have any value for, for example, the speed of light, and the universe will look exactly the same as ours.

I am currently caught up in considering whether light is Lorentz contracted.  This would net another angle for photons, and provides another quantization mechanism, but it clashes with some of my intuitions, as well as the description of velocity as a scrap of bent metric or metric-derivative, since light doesn't have momentum.  Also, Lorentz contraction of light doesn't make sense from a wave perspective, since contracting a continuous wave in this manner would result, I think, in a constant increase in frequency (and thus energy) over time.  So probably not.  But the description of momentum as a scrap of metric-derivative does help us avoid this, since light wouldn't have this behavior in the first place, lacking this sort of momentum (even if it possesses velocity of a sort).  I may return to this later.

I've started thinking about quantum field theory a bit, and how my crackpot nonsense interacts with that.  The short summary is that I think everything will remain basically the same, except possibly electrical charge; for any given field / gauge theory, the relative forces will remain the same.  Since, as I understand it, a gauge theory is effectively a scale-specific description of events - omitting at the subatomic scale gravity, for example, whose contributions are effectively negligible - this basically works; the fact that the attractive phase of the force we call gravity stops "existing" at a lower scale is effectively mathematically isomorphic to treating the phases as negligible.  Most of quantum field theory revolves around operators, which are (currently digesting math, so this is my current and possibly incorrect understanding) Fourier-transformed wave forms representing probability wave forms, which themselves represent the valid quantized energy states of the particles in question.  I don't have a conceptual analogue for this - I have a conceptual description of quantization, but it isn't currently in-depth enough to prescribe a mathematical description for what is going on.  So I can say it -may- be mathematically isomorphic - that is, the mathematical description is identical - with current quantization theory.

Electrical charge, then, is the big unknown.  This is where "time is a closed curve" may come in handy; somebody has already been there.  There is a mathematical description of electrical charge as a small dimension which, apparently, works.  I may discuss this in depth later; the theory, for those who are interested, is the Kaluza-Klein theory.  I suspect, regardless of whether "time is a closed curve" ends up being valid, this theory will end up being extremely important.

Note: "time is a closed dimension" will probably, if I grasp the conceptual underpinnings of the mathematics correctly, imply that all matter has an effectively positive electrical charge, and all antimatter has an effectively negative electrical charge, because matter and antimatter can be viewed as traveling in opposing directions in time itself.  If time is a closed curve, this has no practical ramifications on the observation of history - history is "stored" in something we might describe as a timelike dimension of probability - but it does have some ramifications of the behavior of matter and antimatter, namely that they will behave, per Kaluza-Klein, as if they have opposing electrical charges.

Why, exactly, do I think time is a closed curve, and what the fuck does that mean?  First, what it means: It means time is basically a circle; if you start going forward in time, you arrive in short order back where you started.  I suspect the dimension in question is infinitesimal, which means there is only one "coordinate", one "time"; you move forward, and you keep moving forward over the same point.  You move backwards, you keep moving backwards over the same point.  If it isn't infinitesimal, it must be proportional to the size of a given point mass / singularity, per my insistence that there is a symmetry of scale.  Hard to conceptualize, easy to describe mathematically.

And why do I think time is a closed curve, a circle?

First, because there's a shitload of mathematics in quantum field theory in which particles move backwards in time.  It happens more or less constantly.  Often, these particles moving backwards in time are posited to move backwards in time only to make energy balances work out; these are referred to as virtual particles.  If my model can handle stuff moving backwards and forwards in time without prejudice for the direction, things will end up looking a little bit cleaner.  Second, I have serious issues with trying to integrate two reference frames which have experienced different subjective time, if time isn't a closed curve, because it implies discontinuities, even if very small ones, where, in the fabric of spacetime, some of the time is disconnected from other time.  When the reference frames are brought together, the space and time coordinates should be identical; I can achieve this in my model if we're talking about the same closed set of coordinates, I cannot if we treat time coordinates as more continuous.  (Probability coordinates, meanwhile, may be explicitly discontinuous.  I'll discuss this later.)  And third, if the reason we move forward in time is the dominance of the cosmological constant phase of the universal field at our scales, then at other scales, time would otherwise have to go backwards.  If forwards and backwards are only meaningful from a relative perspective - if time is a closed dimension - this is fine.  It just implies that the phases of matter we think of as "matter" and "antimatter" correlate with the scale being considered, and the scale-locally dominant phase of our universal field.  Time goes forward for matter at our scales; at scales at which antimatter dominate, time goes backwards, so antimatter behaves like matter.  This has a symmetry to it I appreciate.  (Yes, I realize how little sense this entire section probably makes to anyone who isn't me.  I think by the end of this I'm going to need to invent a whole lot of jargon to convey these ideas; standard English words just don't cut it.)