I'm stuck on unifying the four fundamental forces, starting with gravity and electromagnetism. Why, you might ask, would a dipshit with a bachelor's of music be trying to tackle questions that the entire world of physics scholars has been stuck on since they figured out that Einstein's theory (of relativity) had a problem in the first place?
a. Why indeed
c. I dunno?
d. I'm curious
e. I think it has the answers for everything else too, it's a unified theory of Everything, not just the 4 fundamental forces
I'm very curious. I went to talk to a physics professor the other day, which was interesting and helpful and gave me a better grounding in the basic vocabularies of the subject, but he wasn't interested in any unified theories. The official
doctrine of physics right now is that gravity and electromagnetism are completely separate and unrelated. People don't say "We haven't found a way to unify them," they say "they're not related, which is where Einstein messed up."
So I know I'm probably wrong, but I can't find a place to talk about it. I don't have physics major friends. Plus it blends over into chemistry and neuroscience and other areas so frequently that it makes conversing with a specialist difficult anyway. But I can't stop thinking about it! And the only shut-downs I've received have been general, dry ones, rather than specific, helpful ones.
Here's a nutshell version as best as I can present it.
Hypothesis: Electromagnetism and Gravity are two manifestations of the same force, which I wil call "Destino"
but affecting different substances, and with dramatically different speeds and strengths,
related to the charges of their molecules, and to the types of bonds within their molecules.
Gravity is slower and more cumbersome,
because it deals with substances/particles that are not redundant in terms of spacetime.
Once two things are spacetime redundant, or STR, electricity moves through them much more quickly.Part 1 wtf is spacetime redundancy??A sensory model
You are probably familiar with how spacetime is usually portrayed as a blanket. Something like this:
This is a 3-D model of a 4+-D structure, but it works. It can also be understood if you shift the model to 2-D:
This model is badly drawn... the point is that it can be translated into 2d
I'd like to take that a step further. Take that line in the 2D model, and imagine that instead of a drawing, it's a bent wire. Now lay the wire flat on its side. You're looking at it from the side, so you can't see the curves. This is a 1-D model of spacetime. Naturally, it tells us very little....
Now... string this wire with beads. This is a very flawed image, but I'm indulging in it anyway. String it with beads. Beads of...three colors, red, yellow, blue. In no order. Some of the beads will look smaller and larger from our point of view, because they'll be moving along the horizontal spacetime curves. But we'll still see... probably most of them?
Say the bead pattern is like this
Follow the pattern with your eyes. Red. Move to the next. Yellow. Blue. Red. Yellow. Blue-Blue.
A switch flips. Those two are the same. Aha!
And you're electricity, so your Aha moment makes a small vertical bend in the wire, right where the two Blues are. The pair of Blues sinks into the vertical bend, the space above them is now negligible and can be leapt with a spark, so now the pattern goes
Red, Yellow, Blue, Yellow, Red, Yellow, Yellow...
Aha! Fold down beneath the 2 yellows, swallow the pair.
Red, Yellow, Blue, Red, Yellow, Red, ... Red!
Aha! Fold down beneath the 2 reds, encompass the place where the 2 yellows were, and keep going.
Red, Yellow, Blue, Red, Yellow, Yellow!
Red, Yellow, Blue, Red, Blue, Red, Blue, Red, Yellow, Red
Now, if you're traveling along spacetime, you still have to take somewhat of a long journey. But if you're traveling along a higher dimension, you can move significantly more quickly.Wtf are you talking about, Emma? Wtf? Really? Things are more complicated than beads and you can't just jump over them like that.
I know. One of the problems with that model is that the beads get neatly eliminated, sorta, and I'm not sure if that's how it actually happens. Another thing is it doesn't really take the bends in spacetime into account. Another is that it's wack. It only illustrates the idea of shortcuts from redundancy, not the particularity of spacetime redundancy that I propose electricity works upon.
Here's a more concrete model, one that failed with the physics professor yesterday.
A. Say your desk is messy. It has cups, trash, bills, pencil shavings, pencils, a hairbrush on it. If you have to clean your desk, you take the cups to the kitchen, you pay the bills, you put up the pencils, you put the hairbrush wherever it goes - and then you can sorta deal with all the trash at once. This will take a longer time than just sweeping everything off the desk into a bag, but since to you the items are all individual and require individual treatment, that's not possible. (It is possible if you don't care about any of the stuff on the desk, but that's a different question.)
B. Say your desk is messy. It is covered in pencil shavings! You get a big bag and sweep all the pencil shavings into them. You do a neat or a messy job depending, and the neater job might take a little longer, but it will be more effective. Overall, though, the job gets done quite quickly compared to scenario A, because to you the items are all the same because they all have the same function. Therefore, one movement can alter many of their positions in the same way. (You might be really strange and obsessed with pencil shavings, and put each one in a little plastic case. But this is rare.)
In scenario A, you are mostly working with the force Gravity, with assistance from Electromagnetism (when you put two cups into the sink at once, and esp when you throw the trash away at the end). In scenario B, you are working with Electromagnetism, a "shortcut" to being clean because all of the items have the same needs. But the intent, overall, was the same: to clean the desk. The desk-cleaning impulse? That's the unified force (UF, or as I like to call it, "Destino"
Now, as the parenthetical bits at the ends of these paragraphs pointed out, it's not the differences inherent in the physical objects themselves that cause the different treatment. Instead, it's the way they function to the thing that moves them (you) that determines the type of force they'll be treated with. Because all pencil shavings are NOT the same. That's false! They have similar properties, and on our scale might often register as totally indistinguishable, but they're all of different sizes, curves, have different patterns of brokenness, have their own whorls and energies and brittlenesses. And at the end of all of it, they're not
the same, because they're made up of different atoms! But to us, they might as well be the same, because on the level of action they have the same purpose. So they require the same attention, which makes us treat them with the same force at more or less the same time.
So, according to this model, all it takes to enable an electromagnetic shortcut to a clean desk is for Destino to desire the same treatment to be applied in all cases. The easiest road to "wanting the same treatment" is to not value the object at all. If your table was full of dishes it would probably be shorter than a more motley desk, because you'd just stack the dishes and take them into the kitchen... but this would still take longer than just saying it was all trash, and if you had more on your desk than dishes it wouldn't make sense to treat everything like the dishes and put them all away in the sink.
Ya probably stop digging at the part where I embue Destino/Gravity-wielder/Electricity-wielder with emotions and discernment. Wise. But there is a comparison for this, too. For you and me, for something to merit redundant treatment depends on what its function to us is. What about for SpaceTime?
Physical, spacial redundancy?
What the hell is spacial redundancy?
To explain this bit I'm gonna have to make a jump. To black holes. Or something. And for that we're gonna have to jump to fuckin' particles and anti-particles, which I hate to do. But it's not that hard, I guess.
Particles and Anti-Particles
You are sitting by a pond. You draw your finger idly through the water. Water whorls out on either side, in opposite directions, rushing to fill in the vacuum left by the movement of your hand...
What creates matter? Well, matter is made out of condensed energy, like those whorls. And small vibrations, blips, wrinkles in spacetime condense matter inside them. What causes the wrinkling of spacetime? My best guess is forces outside our universe, like how explosions outside a house can make dishes fall inside of it. But this is beyond my thought right now.
So, maybe major folds in spacetime create deeper wrinkles... but anyone can see that the two whorls I'm talking about here, if they truly exist in a fold inside of a vacuum, will quickly cancel each other out. That's why one of them is called an anti-particle. The theory of Hawking radiation says that if any of these happen too near a black hole, one of the particles would get sucked in and the other not. I dunno, bro, I have my own theories about what goes on in black holes, and I dunno enough about hawking radiation anyway. But let's just say for now that matter is created along weird lines.
Now, if these particles are charged (which they almost surely are?), they can ignore most of spacetime and travel more quickly than light to find other particles who will either A. balance them or B. cancel them out. Why? Because of la forza del destino
. Why does energy want to extinguish itself so badly?! I have no idea. But it does. There is nothing more stressful for any kind of charged particle to be unresolved.
So these charged particles zip very quickly, ignoring spacetime, and finding either particles that cancel out their charge (MY THEORY is that charge is related to "spin," which the prof yesterday told me over and over was not the case) or alleviate it somewhat (bonds). I'm making a big jump here from gamma radiation and photons to whole atoms but I suspect it works similarly on larger scales. Like zygote vs embryo talk here. This is not the strongest part of my theory.
What are electron tracks anyway?? Are those related to spin?
Anyway. So. Ions! Ions are desperately attracted to other ions and that's how things like explosions and stars happen.
Blaaah this is taking too long but the summary is that electromagneticism brings ions together very quickly and into huge masses, whereas gravity works more on charged covalent bonds like water etc. The movement is more slow, the bond is less strong, the whole thing is more stable, and the objects created are not nearly as large.
There are some substances that gravity works on, some that EM works on, and some that are less affected by both. I think those substances more outside of the effects of gravity are things like residue of explosions - ash. I feel like Ash is less affected by gravity and held down by air resistance.
Astroids are very light! and undense!
getting people to associate lighter density with an inherent gravitational problem rather than a question of molecular structure
dealing with the idea of air resistance
Why does gravity work on water more than ash? Because water has a weak charge...
It's not just water and ash, of course
Ok my theory goes on and on but I'm getting impatient. The main question is whether my obsession with this is delusional and fucked up and means I should go see a doctor, because I have had a few weird manic fits in the past few weeks and when I talk on the phone to people they say I sound manic, and I've had weird things happening in my brain, and thsi is the avg age of onset for schizoid diseases in ladies. Or whether this is actually interesting, and if so will anyone on the board talk to me about it because no one else will.