Re: Spacetime

Am Sonntag000030, 30.06.2024 um 15:03 schrieb gharnagel:

Thomas Heger wrote:

>
Am Donnerstag000027, 27.06.2024 um 20:32 schrieb gharnagel:

>
Thomas Heger wrote:

>
My own approach is very different and based on spacetime of GR as
'real'.
>
Now I only needed VERY few assumption!
>
that are mainly: points have features and space is a subset of

something

with higher dimensions.

>
Ah, sounds like M-theory :-))

>
No, I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind.

 But M-theory STILL fits that description.  Just because you don't like
it
doesn't mean it's false.

Sure, but dislike wouldn't proof it neither.
'String theory' is based on 'strings' and those are supposed to be material objects (kind of 'superparticles').
But I tried to show, that the particle concept itself is wrong.
So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely nothing.
I had an idea for this to become possible. I just take spacetime of GR for real and assume, that spacetime would consist of kind of 'pointlike elements'.
That is something like a point with features and higher dimensions than points in Euclidean space have.
These 'elements' are connceted multiplicative 'sideways', like a certain equation for quaternions, which is used for rotations.
This concept is my own invention, called 'structured spacetime' and needs no strings.
It is actually relatively simple and needs only very few unusual assumptions.
One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than three dimensions.
Actually I had assumed, such 'points' behave like bi-quaternions and are connected like a certain type of geometric algebra which is known as 'Pauli algebra'.
My 'book' about this idea can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

 

I wanted something different than one of the usual 'materialistic'
concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs.

 That's where ALL of physics IS.
 

Sure, but I'm not a physicist.
TH