Re: Spacetime

Am Donnerstag000004, 04.07.2024 um 18:39 schrieb gharnagel:

Thomas Heger wrote:

>
Am Sonntag000030, 30.06.2024 um 15:03 schrieb gharnagel:

>
Thomas Heger wrote:

>
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.

 I don't think it's possible to disprove either concept.
 

So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely nothing.

 Well, the quantum foam idea allows that, but the existence of such
matter doesn't last long.  I think that disproves that durable matter
can come from 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.

 Frankly, I tend to disbelieve in the concept of spacetime.
 

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.

 I think points are nonexistent.  They are a mental invention to express
geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical
concepts.

Sure: a point is actually meant as coordinate in space, hence not really real in a coordinate free space.
But real things are usually meant to consist of something.
If spacetime is real and a smooth continuum, than spacetime would consists of 'pointlike elements'.
If so, we need to build particles out of these 'points', if we like to combine GR and QM.
This sounds strange, to say the least, but is actually quite good, because it allows such things as 'big bang' or pair-creation.
Then we need something, that could eventually behave the way, that particles could be a substructur under a certain perspective.
I meant that a certain type of quaternions would match the discription and wrote my 'book' about this idea.

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,

 So you agree that your idea is not physics?  Hmmm.

no, not quite.
It's physics, but I'm not a physicist.
That is similar to other professions, say medicine:
I'm not a professional, but that doesn't mean, that my remedy does not heal.
..
TH