Viscous Spacetime

@Franck Delplace,

I found your paper at http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research Papers-Unification Theories/Download/5296.

Your hypothesis is very interesting because it is some kind of rearranging of the properties of different phenomena. A new combination of known phenomena in physics within the relationship of viscous spacetime.
Thus it is - in some way - comparable with the holographic principle: every alteration in spacetime must influence the information present on a 2-dimensional horizon.
Anyway, viscous spacetime must have some (mathematical) structure too. So there is necessity to expand the description of viscous spacetime to a more
accurate level of reality.

@Franck Delplace,

Your hypothesis about viscous spacetime is an overall concept that envelopes phenomena at every scale of reality. Now let we think it over.

We assume there are a couple of different forces in the universe (Standard model of particle physics). Thus how is it possible we can describe phenomena at every scale within one concept? That's really, really strange.

So when Eric Verlinde (Dutch theoretical physicist) shows that gravity is an emergent force, we have to conclude that all known forces are emergent forces. The gravitational force and e.g. the electric force must have the same mechanism, although they differ in strength. Thus a force – as a result of the interaction between fields – is an expression of local circumstances like volume (scale).
Now a bit more concrete.

I can move the mouse pointer along the LCD display in a smooth way. Maybe it is a perfect arc and when I know the radius and the angle I can calculate the exact trajectory of the mouse pointer in a scientific way. Unfortunately, when I take a magnifier I will discover there is no smooth movement. The image of the mouse pointer is displayed – from point to point – by the 2D lattice of the LCD display. And everything that is displayed on the screen is forced by the 2D lattice, no matter what it represents and no matter at which scale. Conclusion: my calculation doesn't describe reality, it describes simplified reality.

So when we describe reality with an overall concept like viscous spacetime, we are applying some kind of overall relation (simplified reality). And the only reason that this imaginary relation isn't concrete, is because we are not aware of the underlying “2D lattice of the LCD display”. Viscous spacetime represents – like Einsteins spacetime – the relations between phenomena. It doesn't describe the fabric of spacetime (the mechanism of the LCD monitor). Nevertheless, we cannot deny the existence of physical laws, physical constants and the overall behaviour of phenomena all over the universe when we try to describe distinct physical phenomena. Thus viscous spacetime is some kind of mathematical description that envelopes the underlying “more accurate level of
reality”. I hope that my explanation isn't too vague.

@Franck Delplace,

Well, may be I can help you a little bit with some ideas because “this bloody liquid” is part of my field of research (I am an independent researcher).

Your idea about the liquid properties of the fabric of spacetime is correct for nearly 25%. Just because the other 75% of the volume of space hasn't liquid properties: it is the scalar field (Higgs field). With other words: the volume we call space is a mixture of a vector field (electric field) and a scalar field. However, this is a mathematical description of the fabric of space. It is totally impossible to know the real stuff.

Moreover, there are no other (primary) fields at every point in the universe because it doesn't “fit”. Mathematically there is only “room” for a vector field and a scalar field. Both fields can interact with each other because they are the twofold expression of one field. Every unity (standard volume) in space has an invariant and a variant property and both properties are responsible for the creation of the 2 spatial fields. Without a standard volume there are no laws and constants in physics (an imaginary homogeneous liquid has no internal structure). In fact, spacetime is an all-inclusive mathematical set of elements (standard volumes).

Reality looks like a fractal. The basic properties of the all-inclusive set concentrate quanta (field deformation) to form atoms but it doesn't stop at that scale. The basic properties concentrate atoms to form matter. Matter forms celestial bodies, etc.,etc. Our problem is that stupid phenomenological reductionism, because it was the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides who argued nearly 2500 years ago that spacetime is like a fluid solid. (And Aristoteles pointed out that all the alterations in the universe have only one cause; he called it “the great mover”.)

That's why I admire your publication so much: you are moving in the direction of the mathematical properties that rule the “liquid portion” of spacetime. It is only a matter of time and you will incorporate the constant speed of light and the conservation of energy within an overall concept of liquid space (the mathematical synchronization of space and time).

The way you develops your concept is terrible complicated. Because it is a top down approach. I have not enough capabilities (and drive) to handle that, so I did it the other way: bottom up.

@Franck Delplace,

May be we have some misunderstanding. My research is like string theory (bottum up). The basis is not gained from physical phenomena, it is just “pure” mathematics (basic mathematics). Of course I am familiar with physics, but it doesn't play an important role for me (only field theory).

Anyway, there is a general phenomenon you will like to know because it is a constant. Suppose you want to describe alterations within the fluid part of reality. When you extrapolate your results to more exotic physical environments (like the inside of a black hole) you get into problems.

I will try to clarify how you can avoid these problems.

We can imagine a volume of 1 m³. We even can imagine ourselves that this volume is part of a black hole, or part of the inside of the moon or just within the biggest cold void somewhere in the universe.

When we compare these 3 situations, we are convinced that our 3 volumes of 1 m³ have not the same energy in these distinct environments. Of course, that's self evidently.

But there is another aspect. How many alterations (the transfer of single quanta) will occur within our volume of 1 m³ during the same amount of time? Be aware, we are talking about the amount of alterations within liquid space during a certain time everywhere in the universe.

The correct answer is that there are no differences between all these situations. Our volume of 1 m³ will transfer the same amount of quanta, unregarded the physical environment. It has to do with the seize of the mathematical structure of the scalar field and the vector field. It is granted that within quantum theory the underlying primary quantum fields cannot transfer quanta without any limit.

I can calculate the structure of the primary quantum fields and within our 1 m³ there is “room” for 8,8307 x 10⁴³ spatial field unities and every unity can transfer 5,99 x 10²³ quanta in 1 second (so we live in a hectic universe).

Back to the 3 distinct environments of our 1m³. The difference between the situations is the local accumulated energy (quanta). In other words: the constant of energy transfer is responsible for the concentration and de-concentration of quanta within spacetime. Because transferring 1 quantum from A to B is subtracting the energy in A with 1 quantum and adding 1 quantum in point B.

Transferring quanta within a volume – and the resulting different local energy densities – is like fluid-mechanics. That's the reason that your research is very, very important for a better understanding of reality in foundational physics.

All that I wrote above about that curious constant, seems a bit strange and doesn't “fit” within the frame of reference of credible physics. But when you think it over for a while you will discover that I have described – in an unusual way – the constant speed of light. Moreover, I have described one of the most remarkable properties of light too: the speed of the transfer of a single quantum is independent from the speed – and the direction – of a transferred concentration of quanta from which the quantum originate.

Is it important to understand the description of that constant (coupling the constant of the speed of light with the structure of quantum fields)? Yes, because it clarifies the mechanism of cold fusion in a truthful scientific way.

@Franck Delplace,

You can find me at http://vixra.org/abs