Geometry As A Unifying Idea

[Dubbelosix]

Gravity as Generic Blueprint to all Fields

 

What if there was no such thing as a gravitational force field, yet the notion of geometry, encapsulates all known fields in fundamental physical reality? If all fields can be described through geometry, how can we not be able to say that the various fields are just expressions of how the particles of that field interact through geometry?

 

Since each field of standard physics has different properties, among them, different masses, different charges, absence of charge maybe… absence of mass will all contribute to varying field strengths interpretable through a geometric interaction?

 

First of all, gravity is very much different to the rest of the forces, and while each force is unique in its own way, gravity is the only description of a field (which is not a force) which can be used to describe other fields; this undeniable geometric consequence could mean that gravity has a description in all fields - in other words, gravity is an intrinsic geometric property of all fields but is not a field itself, but encompasses a geometric significance to spacetime and fields.

1. Gravity is not a real force
2. Geometry is not reserved to a specific field - geometric properties arise in all fields.

It is true that gravity is not a real force and knowing this it may seem even stranger we would expect ‘’gravity’’ to lead to an understanding of quantum theory and unification of the forces.

 

Geometry is a generic feature of reality around us - we ascribe that geometry a name ‘’gravity.’’ Yet, if geometry can describe an electromagnetic theory, ie. geometric algebra, does that mean there is an understanding of gravity in electromagnetism? Since all fields contribute to the stress energy tensor, this type of understanding of reducibilty of gravity to all forms of fields becomes easier to accept. It becomes even more clear when you accept acceleration for particles too will translate into a type of ‘’quantum gravity’’ understanding.

 

I was thinking of these kinds of idea’s long ago, when I realized how different gravity was fundamentally to the rest of the forces - I noticed that in absence of a fundamental field of gravity including gravitions, all particles curve space in their own way, or in other words, gravity is a feature of all physical systems.

Edited March 23, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

To say gravity is a ''field'' in a sense ascribes spacetime [as a field]. That would mean there is a fundamental particle ascribed to spacetime, as a graviton.

One might argue, ''but interactions between fields, takes place inside of spacetime, it is [not spacetime itself].''

Sounds aluring, but I have no idea how you can argue this confidently, since there is no separation of the fields from spacetime - in all reaches of all space, fields are interacting.

If it is difficult to argue a separation of spacetime from the fields that are intrinsically part of it, we can very well say these fields are not only a part of spacetime, but could very well manifest what we call spacetime.

From hereon, I define the following:

1. Geometry manifests as degrees of freedom in which fields can interact.

2. Fields interact geometrically and it is here gravity arises.

If true quantum fields are incapable of being separated from the definition of spacetime, then we can start to piece the terminology together.

True quantum fields with an energy, still tells space how to bend - and in some way, space tells fields how to interact.

[Dubbelosix]

Yes, I do know a little bit about entropic gravity (thermodynamic gravity).

 

I should be clear, I have never shunned the concept of an emergent spacetime - it's just that the models I have read depend on things I just can't accept, like holography.

 

To have a notion of space, you also need matter inside of it; this has always been true within the first principles of general relativity and it was shown not long ago, how emergent spacetime can arise from entangled systems. So there has always been an understanding for me, that there could be an emergence. The real question is how it emerges, do we have the tools without inventing new ones to explain it? I say yes.

[Dubbelosix]

Yes ... perhaps, but I also have problems accepting inflation. I am not the only one, people more knowledgeable than me have their own problems accepting it for various different reasons.

 

Matter appears in a universe, in a strict mathematical model, from electroweak symmetry breaking. For a detailed chronological order, you can follow this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

[Dubbelosix]

And yeah, those definitions for emergence seem to be fine with me. And as you know, I am not a fan of string theory either.

[Dubbelosix]

Better link

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_epoch

[Dubbelosix]

This epoch is when matter appears and coincides with inflationary models during a synthesis phase for particles.

[ralfcis]

My knowledge in this subject is inconsequential but point 2 above just doesn't ring true to me. How convenient this explanation is to resolving a paradox. What makes more sense to me is a preferred spirality (chirality) to the universe like most snail shells have a preferred clockwise spirality. The universe would not have wasted its time in an epoch of creation vs annihilation if it had just gone through all that expansionary trouble to creating particles and anti-particles. Some process of spirality must have kicked in.

 

Just spitballin here but are there anti-gluons or will our normal gluons suffice to stick together anti-matter nuclei? Seems to me unbounded gluons release a lot of energy comparable to annihilation energies. Couldn't the spirality have started with a preferred gluon and instead of wasting time on pointless, endless creation and annihilation cycles, wouldn't the process have concentrated its efforts on converting annihilation energy into gluon production which would favor the construction of matter nuclei? I'm just curious if there's a theory already out there like this. If not, my ideas aren't worth discussing, I know nothing about this topic.

Edited March 23, 2019 by ralfcis

[Dubbelosix]

All theories have their critics. String theory might be the future. But at the moment it has not proven anything I am aware off.

 

 

Agreed. String theory can still prove useful even if it isn't right.

[Dubbelosix]

My knowledge in this subject is inconsequential but point 2

 

Which one? Is it the statement that fields interact geometrically?

[Dubbelosix]

This is after the inflationary phase which initiated the hot big bang isn't it :)

 

Most cosmologists take the electroweak symmetry breaking as the same phase as the inflation.

[ralfcis]

Which one? Is it the statement that fields interact geometrically?

 No, point 2, antimatter/matter burning up until matter won as a residue.

Edited March 23, 2019 by ralfcis

[Dubbelosix]

Yeah, that explanation doesn't really fit the bill. For a consistent model, there will be a violation of Lorentz symmetry - in an ideal world, this will help explain the chirality of matter preference for this universe.

[ralfcis]

Ok.

[Vmedvil2]

Most lose that argument when put to test :) Inflation of space ftl precedes hot big bang, and caused hot big bang. 

 

An interesting get around for singularities is CCC and Aeons by Penrose as g > 0 expansion accelerates creating another inflation phase and another hot big bang ie no beginning of time unless you mean in this Aeon :)

 

The more I try and find arguments against emergence of space time and gravity the more I am tending to buy into the ideas. An interesting outcome of emergent theories is they don't appear to require all the dimensions of string theory to explain things   Theoretical and never detected gravitons and dark matter are not required  :shocked: Which enables other theories to rapidly kicked into touch when they try to invoke them, which makes me very suspicious of string theory which needs gravitons :zip: and a pre existing space time :eek: in some versions, but not all

 

 

Well in an expanding universe g > 0 had to be the state of the universe otherwise how would you explain Dark Energy just as Λ > 0 , In a universe where there was no dark Energy I do not think there would be gravity because of the nature of dark energy as a kinda inverse to gravity somehow Dark Energy and Gravitation are connected via time-space, it is possible that Dark Energy is the conclusive force of the BB where as Gravity is the system trying to reach equilibrium like in thermodynamics. Dark Energy usually is in behavior like a negative mass to the reference point of all gravitation-ally interacting objects or "Massive" objects. Dark Energy is a manifestation of Λ > 0 just as Gravitation is a manifestation of G > 0. Big G being the absolute force of gravity just as  Λ being the absolute force of dark energy, if Dark energy has a force it should be treated like gravity. What if Dark Energy is Anti-Gravitons?

Edited March 24, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

All of this talk strikes me as nothing more than metaphysical speculation.  Many of the various  premises invoked are completely without empirical support and beyond the scope of falsification.   It's a product of perhaps brilliant, but still basically only creative, minds.  So much of it is simply ad hoc.

 

The greeks, in their creation myths involving the development of their various Gods, and their biographies, were much more entertaining than all of this speculation which goes by the misnomer of "physics."  If you want to embark on a journey of creative art, it should at least be entertaining, I figure.  

Edited March 24, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

It is true that gravity is not a real force and knowing this....

 

To me, the metaphysical speculation enters ab initio. 

 

"Spacetime" may be a useful mathematical fiction, but the whole concept in one that I regard as just that, i.e. fictitious.

 

Yet so many start with the assumption/conclusion that it "truly" represents something "real" which is absolutely "known."

Edited March 24, 2019 by Moronium