Agemoz's Physics Blog

We live in a slice of 4D spacetime, a 3D hypersurface I call the Activation Layer, that confines all particles, fields, and interaction forces. I have discovered a number of fascinating properties that result from assuming the real-life validity of this time slice. It gives us dual-spin point particles and quantizes them (see https://wordpress.com/post/agemozphysics.com/1917) and shows how particle annihilation is just the exchange of momentum energy from linear to angular momentum states and computes a valid quantized angular momentum (see https://wordpress.com/post/agemozphysics.com/1839 ).

However, I am sure that physicists would not accept this idea that we live entirely within a single hypersurface slice of spacetime. I suspect they would point to how special relativity enables the exchange of space and time elements depending on an observer’s frame of reference, and thus would invalidate the activation layer concept. I have found that a closer look at special relativity will defeat this argument.

One of the main tenets of special relativity states that observed event distances and times are dependent on the observers velocity magnitude and direction. The Lorentz transforms are a type of tensor operator, based on the first derivative of position in time (velocity or momentum) within 4D spacetime and thus could be called a first order tensor operator on spacetime. Gravity, on the other hand, is based on the second derivative of position in time (acceleration or gravity) and is described by the stress-energy tensor and the Riemann curvature tensor, and could be called a second order tensor operator on spacetime.

Both of these tensor operators can bend spacetime, including the activation layer hypersurface. The Lorentz transforms produce a linear (flat angle) bend of the observer-object dimensional axes, where the axes approach the light cone angle depending on observer velocity. The stress-energy tensor induces spacetime curvature that has a central force (second order polynomial) behavior. Note that passing a given 3D hypersurface through either of these linear operators will not split, break, or join the hypersurface to or from another hypersurface, there will be a one-to-one mapping to another transformed hypersurface. Just because these tensor operators can bend our hypersurface to extreme degrees, such as near a black hole, doesn’t mean that our existence will somehow leak out of it or get transferred to another hypersurface. We are locked in, imprisoned if you like, to this hypersurface activation layer no matter how it is contorted, and as a result, you cannot use these two tensor operators to say that the activation layer cannot be real.

Another critically important way to think about this is that two spatially separated observers can both occupy the same hypersurface, yet still observe each other or outside events as special relativity demands. You cannot create a situation where either of the observers or the events must be in some other hypersurface.

Note that even though there are theoretical ways to get to another hypersurface via, for example, the oft-repeated idea of wormhole bridges or other mathematical permutations of the 4D spacetime manifold, we cannot get there. Many physicists have showed that such 4D spacetime constructs are mathematically possible, but each case requires a pre-existing spacetime discontinuity. It’s the same topological constraint of trying to make a torus out of a disk. If you don’t have a discontinuity to begin with, these linear tensor operators aren’t going to create one for you.

You can’t get there from here without a discontinuity, and right now the only possible place for such a discontinuity might be within a black hole. Right now, there is zero evidence that black holes have such a discontinuity inside–we have no way to look inside and see what’s there. It is possible, maybe, but absolutely no evidence for it. I suspect we will eventually find that quantum theory will prevent a true discontinuity there, but for the time being I have a lot of evidence that validates the activation layer hypersurface concept along with a lot of valid consequences of it, but zero evidence, particularly from special relativity, that can be used to invalidate it.

Agemoz

Tags: general relativity, general-relativity, quantum, science, special relativity, special-relativity

This entry was posted on October 9, 2024 at 11:28 pm and is filed under Physics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.