you disappoint ! ….re: eleven dimensions, theory..is extraordinary….

have you considered the fact that though you obviously know alot .!

you are merely disabusing and regurgitating what you learned in college…(in my opinion ) ]]>

“Their ‘scientists’ would concoct a clever invention called a ‘force’ in order to hide their ignorance.”

Michio Kaku

Whenever we assume a spacetime metric that geometrically differs from the vacuum’s actual geometry it becomes necessary to create suppositions of mystical force fields that exist on top of that background spacetime metric to explain our observations. The more our assumed geometry differs from Nature’s true geometry the more we have to invent forces to mimic the phenomena in it. The inclusion of a force contradicts the premise that Nature conforms to that geometry. If forces are necessary, we have the wrong geometry.

When we switch from Euclidean to Minkowskian assumptions (the axiomatic foundation of general relativity), gravitational phenomena go from being the result of a mystical force (mapped by equations that exist independently from the system), to intrinsic aspects of spacetime’s geometric character. Even though the three microscopic forces are not enveloped by Minkowskian geometry, the fact that this transition necessitates one less force suggests that it is closer to Nature’s true geometry.

Superimposing force equations on top of our assumed geometry may enable accurate representations of how systems in the universe evolve, but this process cannot give us insight as to why they evolve that way. Forces do not offer an intuitive source for, or explanation of, the phenomena they model. They tell us nothing about why those effects exist because, as Michio Kaku points out, forces are merely concoctions designed to hide our ignorance.

Einstein’s conception of spacetime reduces that ignorance. The geometry of general relativity has no need for a magical gravitational force pulling on bodies. Objects orbit because they are following straight paths in curved spacetime. Gravitational phenomena are intrinsically accounted for in this geometry. Can this insight be extended? Can we move beyond forces altogether? Can we geometrically explain all force phenomena?

A New Perspective

“A field of force represents the discrepancy between the natural geometry of a coordinate system and the abstract geometry arbitrarily ascribed to it.”

Arthur Eddington

Forces do not exist. Phenomena only appear mysterious, or require forces to account for them, when those phenomena are explored through a lens of axiomatic tenuity. As Arthur Eddington pointed out, there would be no need to conjure up forces if our expectations sprang from the natural geometry of spacetime. All effects would be internal to the system—natural and expected consequences of the vacuum’s geometry.

The most useful way to understand forces, or force fields, is to recognize that they hint at how the natural geometry of spacetime differs from the geometry we’ve ascribed it. To explore this point, let’s consider an example. Suppose Dave and Zia are sliding without friction near the equator of a perfectly spherical ice (frictionless) world. Dave is ten meters north of the equator, going twenty km/hr to the east, while Zia is ten meters south of the equator, also going twenty km/hr to the east. Because Dave and Zia both believe that they are traveling on parallel paths, they expect no chance of collision. To them it is clear that, so long as no forces act on them, causing them to deflect their trajectories, they should coast around the world, keeping a constant twenty meters apart. But after a while, they notice that even though they haven’t turned at all they are slowly drifting toward each other. Because of this, they conclude that there must be a mysterious force that is attracting them toward each other.

If we were watching this spectacle from the International Space Station, where the curvature of Earth is visible, we would discover just what is going on. With no forces attracting them, Dave and Zia are each traveling along paths that are defined as perfectly straight by the geometry of the Earth (remaining perpendicular to the surface). These paths are called great circles or geodesics. (Figure 20-1) Each great circle completes a loop around the world.

Latitude lines are not straight lines on Earth—they are not geodesics. This fact can easily be seen near the poles where latitude lines become tight circles (Figure 20-2). Because Dave and Zia have misunderstood their local geometry, because they have approximated the shape of the Earth to be cylindrical near its equator, they believe that latitude lines are straight. In response to this oversight they might invent a magical force to explain why they have deviated from their expected latitudinal paths, but that ‘explanation’ would be entirely empty.

If Dave and Zia are inclined to investigate this new force, they can set up another experiment. This time they might ask ten people of varying masses to follow them. When they do, they will find that each of those individuals follows the same collision path regardless of their mass. Because Dave and Zia are attributing their attraction to a force, and because each person requires a different magnitude of force (to accelerate their individual mass), they conclude that this attractive force is proportional to the mass of the object being attracted.

In reality there is no force at play here. As always, this force is an illusion—a consequence of the observer’s ignorance of the system’s true geometry. Mistaking latitude lines for geodesics Dave and Zia have conjured up this force to align their predictions and observations. But when they realize that great circles are the geodesics (the straight paths) for the geometry of the Earth, the apparent attraction between them dissolves—becoming nothing more than the manifestation of a geometric condition that they were unaware of. Under the correct geometry, no force is necessary to explain their intersecting geodesic paths.

According to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, Newton made this exact mistake when he formulated his law of gravity. Correcting for the geometric property of curvature, we find that gravity isn’t a force at all. Rather, it is a manifestation of how the geometry of spacetime macroscopically differs from the geometry of Newtonian (or Euclidean) space.

In Einstein’s picture, Earth’s mass deforms the geometry of spacetime around it. This geometric deformation explains why it is the case that as we stand on the ground we do not feel gravity pulling us down. Rather, we feel the ground pushing up on us, deflecting us from traveling a straight path through spacetime. Similarly, Dave and Zia cannot feel any force between them. But if they were to fasten a stick between them, keeping them a fixed distance apart, then they would be able to feel the stick pushing on them, deflecting them from their natural great circle paths.

Interpreting the world via forces means embracing a geometry that is different from the natural geometry. Objects appear to change their motions, or properties, due to forces only when we fail to accurately map the true geometric character of spacetime. Incorrect axiomatic assumptions lead to inaccurate expectations. Inventing magical forces is about covering up the errors in our foundational assumptions. This act may allow us to realign our predictions with our observations, but it also cuts us off from satisfying our curiosity. Phenomena cannot be “explained” via forces because forces are merely placeholders of our ignorance.

When we start from the right set of assumptions about Nature’s geometry we no longer project inaccurate expectations about the world and, therefore, no longer need to postulate the existence of mystical forces. The fact that four forces are needed to cover up the errors that spring from the assumption that the vacuum is Euclidean, suggests that the vacuum’s true geometry supports four kinds of distortions that Euclidean geometry has no room for.

A superfluid vacuum has an interactive geometry that is naturally characterized in terms of vector and scalar fields. A vector field representing the vacuum state details the physical positions and velocities of every quantum of space at a given moment. A scalar field that references the vacuum state assigns numbers to each region in the vacuum, representing either the magnitude of vacuum fluid flow in or out of that region, or the density of that region.

Variances in these fields characterize nonuniform arrangements of vacuum quanta, or nonuniform fluid flow in the vacuum. These variances give rise to force phenomena because they reference characteristics that have no counterpart in Euclidean geometry. This suggests that to fully encode force phenomena we need only to complete a description of the geometry of the vacuum—a description that is exhaustively defined by the relative positions, velocities, and torques of the vacuum quanta.

…

The rest of the chapter goes on to show how the remaining forces are all geometric expressions of the difference between the geometry we assume the vacuum has and its actual geometry.

As for the latter part of your question, there may seem to be a conceptual difference between a force naturally pulling on an object making if follow an elliptical path (like the moon around earth) and a ball on a string being swung around your head. After all one is caused by you while the other isn’t right? Well that’s not a significant difference. The thing to recognize is that our explanation for why the ball remains in orbit of your head as you swing it around is because of the tension in the rope, which is explained as a net collection of force interactions between the atoms and molecules in the string. Therefore, even when you are pushing on something to accelerate it, there is ultimately a “force” explanation that is being appealed to – in these cases the electromagnetic force. The most interesting thing is that if we make different assumptions about the geometric make up of the vacuum we dissolve even those forces and end up with an interactive metric that automatically ascribes the effects we used to blame on mystical forces.

]]>Also do you not believe in the term ‘force’ at all? If not, I would like to know whether you would call the force that we exert physically on a body/mass to cause it accelerate(F=ma)as a force or something else? (note: here I am not saying about a natural force like gravity but an artificial applied force by a person on a mass)

looking forward to your reply

jules

Scroll to Peter’s comment on August 17, 2013, and my embedded response dated February 11, 2014. ]]>

Have already got the pre-publish pdf, but would like to get a copy of the finished ebook with photos, diagrams, animations, etc.

But I don’t have and don’t want an itunes account.

Is there anywhere I can get an e-copy compatible with Android and Kindle?

Cheers

Tom

Still considering the consequences of quantisation of the vacuum and how this produces the universe we observe.

Regarding your explanation above to how fundamental particles (quantum vortices) “feel” gravity, do you mean, by “there is a macroscopically measurable different in the amount of quanta interacting with the “bottom” side versus the “top” side. Which ever side is interacting with space the most determines the direction the object will tend to go”, that there is a macroscopic pressure differential across the particle (i.e. different pressure on different parts of the “surface” of the quantum vortex, and that this produces the “curvature” of space? ]]>

Please could you put a link here to that “posted … response” ]]>

1.) There are two paperback versions, both available at Amazon. One is full color and one is black and white. The black and white images were processed differently so improve how they printed in just black and white, but other than that they are the same images.

2.) Great question. Perhaps this will help. The smallest amount of gold we can talk about with transcending the definition of gold is a single atom of gold. This fact does not invalidate any talk about the internal structure of a gold atom, it just means that when we are talking about that internal structure we are not talking about it in terms of gold. That is, the gold atom is not made up of smaller bits of gold assembled together to make an arbitrary unit value of gold. It is made up of things that are not gold, which come together in just the right way to become something with the right properties to be called gold. If the vacuum is also quantized, then the smallest piece of the vacuum is a single quantum. But that quantization can continue, the quantum can be made up of parts, but if it is those parts are not pieces of the vacuum, they are more fundamental constituents whose collection comes together to compose the fundamental unit of the vacuum. Talking about changes in position within that collection of subquanta is completely different from talking about changes in position in the vacuum because no change in position in subquanta changes position in the vacuum. To return to our analogy, imagine I asked you to identify a single position in the gold matrix (within a particular chunk of gold). Once you select a position (and let us assume that the matrix is unchanging in time) then I can talk about defining a position on a single neutron within that atom of gold, and then switch my position of interest to another neutron. This switch did nothing to change my position in the “gold matrix”. It is a completely different reference. Since it is the state of space (the space arrangements or matrix) that builds up the vacuum we call spacetime, this analogy directly carries over.

I hope that helps. ]]>