Some short thoughts
1. Gravity waves — where are they? A thought:
Let's assume that all waves as such are a sewing together of complementary fields. A communication in a certain dimension degree (d-degree) between its complementary poles in our model.
- In transversal EM-waves between electric and magnet fields.
- In longitudinal ”gravity waves”, a sewing together between Mass and Space.
Then the assumed gravity waves should in reality be "GA-waves", a communication between the gravity force FG and the outward acceleration one (FA).
If so, where to find them? A combination of a centrifugal force, reevaluated as a force in its own right, and a centripetal force *?
Hence we could suspect that these GA-waves are identical with the very rotation of celestial bodies (also the spin of micro-particles?), expression for the communication Mass - Space.
*As long as this doesn't crash totally in the depth of black holes.
A pair of neutron stars that rotate around each other and are observed to come closer to one another with time has been mentioned as a proof of lost energy, interpreted as emission of gravity waves. (If rightly understood.)
Could eventually the "lost" energy - or distance, a factor of Space - be transformed to a still faster rotation of the neutron stars, equivalent with a shorter wavelength?
Where to find the "graviton" in this case? In units of a year!? Half a year or multiples of it? All motions regarded as translations between Distance and Time.
Addition 2017: Gravity waves noted from unition of two black holes!
2. "Dark matter! - "Dark energy":
One origin for the idea that Universe must be filled with much "dark matter" besides visible galaxies and dust is said to be an observation of peripheral stars of a galaxy: that these rotated at the same speed as inner ones, not slower. If galaxies rotate more like stiff bodies, the conclusion would be that they ought to contain much more "matter" than calculated. Several candidates for such matter have been proposed.
Now, in another context, it's said that most of the mass of a proton in nuclei of atoms lies in the binding energy. (Quarks have only a tiny part of a few MeV of their total mass, near 1 GeV.) Mass and energy equivalent according to the E = mc2.
A non-scientist may ask why not the same could be true for galaxies, that most of their mass lies in the binding energy itself - which we usually connect with Gravity. (?)
In the elementary model here the forces are regarded as an underlying level of higher d-degree than mass and particles.
Could we simply identify dark "energy" with these underlying forces as relations, thus with Gravity itself?
In quantum field theory the strong force in atomic nuclei is a field where the force is carried by assumed "gluons", i. e., massless bosons. A gravity field is carried by assumed, hitherto not identified, "gravitons", also massless bosons.
With the interpretation here ”dark matter" and "dark energy" woud be taken as
concepts for the complementary "poles" of d-degree 4, from the 00-pole and the
0-pole respectively:. parents of Mass and Space, inward and outward directed
The reigning idea that gravity depends on mass or only is expressible in terms of
mass seems responsible for the confusion. Cf. the view on mass as the son of gravity.
3. "Antimatter" - and why this Universe is built of matter:
Physicists of today seem trapped in the thoughts of symmetries and wonder why our Universe not as well was created by antimatter like negative protons and "positrons" instead of electrons.
There are the two answers of Einstein's formula: E = + mc2 and E = - mc2
as divided by an E0-line.
Antiprotons etceteras are created in laboratories with the help of positive energy as if they filled "holes" of negative energy up to its positive level. (Cf. file about the propagation of light.)
Simultaneously, antimatter in the physicists' sense seems primarily at least be a question of charge *, the reversed signs.
A simple suggestion is to regard a plane coordinate system, where the x- and y-axes get plus and minus halves:
Fig M-1: Matter - "Antimatter"
It gives 4 separate quadrants, clockwise +x,+y, +x, -y, -x, -y and -x, +y.
Identifying +x/+y quadrant as the one for our positive protons and matter, we have the primary antimatter in the -x/-y quadrant, "anti" in the double aspect of both mass and charge; mass presumed here as a deeper property of higher d-degree than charge.
The -/- quadrant should be identified with Vacant Space, the fundamental antimatter. It implies complementarity - and basic asymmetry.
The physicists' created antiparticles would we find in quadrant +x, -y (or perhaps in -x, +y) as just mirrored once around half an axes, not through the origin.
*When particle physicists give equal reality to antiquarks, with equal positive mass as quarks, it's the charge they indicate as reversed.
4. Entropy and unidirectional of Time:
It was said in a TV-program about Time that its (mathematically) mysterious unidirectional according to some physicists could be explained by the (similar) "law" of entropy: imagined as an inevitable way of Universe towards increasing disorder since Big Bang. Entropy also implying a way to energy forms of lower quality.
This talk must sound as nonsense for most people. What happens in stars for instance in the fusion to higher order of heavier elements?! And in all building of molecules and in the development of life and all complex processes in our brains (if not in the physicists')?!
(Doesn't even the map of the background radiation from earliest time after Big Bang show on a first order of higher versus lower radiating areas in macrocosm?)
It feels quite enough with one. However, it's said that physicists occupied with the String theory have found that their seven or so hidden, rolled up dimensions may be conglomerated in an imaginable amount of ways (10500!), which should allow for an immense amount of Universes.
Doesn't it lie nearer at hand to think that these folded dimensions are expressed in the development of life and all the universes of different species and in our brains?
Order cannot simply be high energy. Our power stations give high tension but without transformer stations the order of societies would be much less.
6. Universe as hologram?
Possibly physicists are only a bit careless when speaking in TV for the general public presenting a theory about Universe as a hologram. They say that perhaps we live in a 2-dimensional world, which just illustrates a 3-dimensional one through the same technology as hologram pictures. Why not extrapolate - or rather interpolate - and think of our "3-dimensional" world as a hologram of a 4-dimensional one?
The background thought seems to be that "information bits" cannot be destroyed and thus could be stored at the border of black holes in macrocosm as a spherical surface of information (like a history book?), while only the mass property disappears.
With no knowledge about the arguments behind these speculations, it may yet be allowed to put a question about properties of light:
In holograms making 2-dimensional pictures of a 3-dimensional object, the phase property of light beams is used. Which further property of light could be used in a step from 4- to a 3-dimensional illustration of structures? Besides a much broader bandwidth? The spin? Relations between angular momenta? Or something else...?
7. Three-dimensional space?
In which sense does a 3-dimensional Space exist? Is it only an artifact?
It may be practical, a way to identify the position of a point in the closer neighborhood if the coordinate axes are orthogonal and independent of one another.
But how, if the coordinate axes are wavy ones, perhaps even frequency modulated, not orthogonal but in changing angles to one another - and deeply interdependent through the common origin?
(With dimensions defined as the relation between complementary poles as in this model, it could be similar to a political discussion within a group where many complementary views are included in the interactions.)
8. Black holes and what's at their bottom:
One natural guess among others about black holes from the viewpoints in this model is that they in the bottom reaches the common source to the surroundings, that we there may imagine a transition to expanding Space, its complementary pole, the real "antimatter". ?
Fig M-2a, b:: A return of mass to its origin in d-degree 4?