FrediFizzx wrote:
"hep" <hephops@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158796224.444160.159070@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
FrediFizzx wrote:
"hep" <hephops@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158662202.338753.301560@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
FrediFizzx wrote:
"hep" <hephops@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158629441.876068.255680@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I didn't understand a crucial part of it last two years after
first
reading Lisa Randall "Warped Passages". But the past few
days I finally understood a particular concept when i re-read
it a second time. It's when they say another braneworld could
exist 1 millimeter or even a a few planck distance away.
This is the explanation that made me understand and there
may be one or two who didn't understand it as well so let me
share it. The explanation is like this. Supposed an ant is
crawling
in a book page, he can only see width and height. If he
thought it is all there is to it. He can't imagine how another
book page (or brane) can exist a few cm away. That is,
he didn't anticipate the thickness of the page. Likewise,
in addition to our 3 dimensions, if there is another extra
dimension and it is only 1 millimeter thick. We can position
or
put two branes in just a distance of 1 millimeter. Since each
brane is composed of a complete 3D spacetime.
What is a 3D spacetime? I suppose you mean 4D (3+1) spacetime
here?
If I mentioned 4D spacetime. Some (newbies) may think I'm
including
the extra 5th or 4th dimension already. Einstein really make
it harder for Superstrings Theory to convey the extra space
dimension
concept by pre-emptying with the time being part of the
coordinate. I know this is right anyway and we should refer
to the extra 4th space dimension as 5th dimension with the 4th
reserved for time minkowski wise.
Did you answer my question here? I think you did mean 4D. You need
to
try to be more clear in what you are saying. The key part of what I
was
asking about is a 3D *spacetime*. A plane that "moves" thru time?
I mean 4D spacetime. It's just semantics thing. When people want
to refer to extra spatial dimension, they have to talk of 5th
dimension.
Some gets confused and wonder why 5th suddenly and not fourth...
unaware 4th is reserved for time mikowski wise.
This
means in your living room. It is possible for another
spacetime to overlap it since the branes extra dimension
is very thin and like pages in a book, they can just
be beside each other.
Using 3D imagination, it may be hard to visualize this,
but using higher dimensional visualization, it is perhaps
possible to see this aspect. However, if someone of
you have managed to visualize or project it and can
convince us it is impossible. Let us know now.
It is much easier to imagine two 4D (3+1) spacetimes
intersecting.
No
need for them to even be a millimeter apart.
If there are two 4D spacetimes intersecting. How do the particles
or forces know which of the spacetimes to occupy??
Well, that is a good question and believe me aspects of it are being
thought about. The "gravity" or TeV brane is fully occupied by
possible
positive energy states. So nothing can "fall back in" going that
way.
Funny. Solutions are being thought of to a problem that doesn't even
exist. There may be no dual spaces. Since we are all brane-aware.
Just describe it in terms of branes.
Hey, it is just a model. Believe me, in this model the problem does in
fact exist. There are many clues that point to a dual spacetime type of
model.
The problem is why don't the particle states in the gravity brane
just
come rushing into our brane? What holds them off? Well, I would
have
The solution would be easy if you model particles are open strings
whose two ends are stucked on the branes hence sequestered.
Are you trying to think of ways to model particles without strings
and yet can be isolated in a brane??
I have a problem mechanically with "the ends of a open string stuck on a
brane" kind of a description. Like I said before, there are no open
strings in our QVC model.
to say that some of them did come rushing into our spacetime at what
might be construed as a big bang event. But why not more? So there
must be a property of the quantum objects (or interaction of the
qo's)
in the gravity brane that "sticks" or keeps them together. This is
the
only thing I can think of so far because quite frankly I don't see
anything in our spacetime that would prevent them from "rushing in".
;-)
Isn't Lisa Randall RS1 paper all about it. The branes are sequestered
because of very strong warped factor in Gravitybrane which
separates it from the Weakbrane.
I am talking about a somewhat different model than the RS1 model. If
you can't tell the difference then I guess I will stop.
I believe the differences between your dual spacetime and Randall
RS1 is thus..
1. In RS1 quantum interaction is convensional based.. which
is for all intent and purposes based on almost magic. Yours
on the other hand want to produce details on such thing as
pair production and annihilations (based on holes or half holes),
what's waving, sources of the resonances or motes, etc. RS1
doesn't deal with these.
2. RS1 has the particles as open strings stucked on the branes
(D-branes) while yours want to model particle not string based
but on something else such as composing of geometric shapes,
etc..
From Occam's razor. We could choose your simpler, logic
based scenerio but there is one thing that explains why
the weird convensional formalism is prefered.. because
the latter explains most data down to 1 in several dozen
significant digits.
Of course you want to try to make your model compatible
with the data which can produce the same predictions.
But most of our physics data can be explained by the
quantum based physics. For example. Probability Amplitudes.
You multiply each independent path in the Feynman
diagram and then add the Amplitudes of all diagrams and
square it to get the probability (since the Amplitude is
a complex number). This means every alternative pathway
is taken into account. It's as if time doesn't exist in the
quantum world and all possibilities are taken into account.
This is just so amazing and I'm awed with it. Using your
dual spacetimes with your attempt to concretize or
newtonize the particles attributes and even interactions.
There's almost no way you can use these to match the
predictions of QED, QFT, etc. Pls. explain this aspect
as it is the one that is making me doubt about the
plausibility of your model. Pls. discuss this aspect in
your model.
The above is one of the only two major inquiries I'd like to
make at this point in time. Second is General Relativity.
From Guv = k Tuv where Guv represents how spacetime
is curved and the right side contains the total of all the
matter and energy, radiation, pressure. How would your
dual spacetime behave in it. How can your make double
geometry and overlapping. In RS1 and braneworlds.
They don't overlap. While yours do. Pls. model yours
using General Relativity (or an improved version) as this
is the language whereby we can understand your hypothesis.
Pls. don't forget these two major inquiries.
1. How do you deal with the quantum "Amplitudes" in your model
2. How do you represent your dual spacetime using GR.
These are the only 2 questions I'll ask in the meantime to see
the plausability level of your hypothesis so pls answer each
in details.
hep
All of this assume that spacetime
can be modeled by GR and since the branes are composed of spacetime
then all can be modeled by GR. Maybe you must describe your
dual space in terms of GR and branes and the like. The term "dual
space" is an oxymoron. Try to use more standard terms if you
want people to understand what you are saying and not just yourself.
I don't use the term "dual space". That is J. Polasek's term. I use
"dual spacetime".
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
