Quantum Gravity redux

One of my faults is a dislike of repeating myself.  That doesn't work well with the blogging and education format.  So I will repeat and clarify my previous thoughts.

Most of what you can easily find on the web about relativity (both special and general) is bunk and half-truths.  As Terry Pratchett said, it's "lies for children".  I have guesses as to why this is so.  Most people, and this includes scientists, don't actually know much about what they're talking about.  Scientists don't know much about the real world any more.  They are mathematicians working with computer models.  And they're not taught to write well.

So, here is my explanation of relativity, garnered from years of layman research and thinking.

You cannot explain relativity without explaining gravity.  You cannot explain gravity without explaining quantum fields.

A quantum field is how each of the forces that comprise the universe exists and operates.  Each force has its own field.  Particles are standing waves in those fields. The fields interact with each other constantly, according to specific laws.  Changes in the electric field produce changes in the magnetic field, and vice versa.

Spacetime is a field.  It governs motion.  Gravity is a differential in that field.  Everything tends to move from a higher level to a lower level, gaining energy as it does so.  The base energy of the spacetime field is a large positive number.  All other fields derive their energy from spacetime, reducing it accordingly.  This reduction propagates spherically at the speed of light.  (Since the fields have been around since the beginning of time, most of this propagation has already happened.  We just see changes now.)  Gravity is an effect, not a cause.  And it pushes from empty space, instead of pulling towards concentrations of energy.  (Although I will admit, that is a bit of "Six of one, a half dozen of another.")  The spacetime field, as all other fields, is quantized.  ('Quantized' is a fancy term for working with integers, not real numbers.)  In fact, spacetime quantization may be the cause of all other quantizations.  There is a minimum bit of energy, and a minimum bit of time and space.  But these minimum distances and times are relative to a particle.  Spacetime is not a static, integer grid, but rather a smooth flow of the real numbers.

Look at the curvature of spacetime.  That is to say, the difference in energy levels across an area.  If you take a reference from a flat plane parallel to the resting energy of spacetime, you can see the angle made at each point.  The sine of this angle is the motion associated with this spot, where 1=c, the speed of light.  The cosine of this angle is the time associated with this spot, with 1 being the slowest passage of time possible.  Note that these numbers are what a particle at that spot would experience, based on the spacetime curvature.  Please note the elegance of this.  Sin^2 + Cos^2 = 1, as Einstein proved the relationships of Special Relativity are based on the Pythagorean theorem.

Be aware that an alternate explanation is that the angle could be derived from a simple fraction of the whole - how much energy remains at that spot.  This has a subtle but important difference from local curvature.  This distinction could be tested by conducting experiments with atomic clocks at the various Lagrange points, most particularly L4 or L5.

What I just described is special relativity.  This is the laws of motion and experienced time for a single moment in a static universe.  General relativity is what you get when you turn the universe back on, and have constant movement and change everywhere.

Please note that any particle gains energy as it moves down the spacetime slope (stealing it from spacetime), and loses energy as it moves upslope (returning it to spacetime).  Please also note that particles maintain their own speed and perceived time by having their own forward-reverse energy differentials.  (forward is lower energy, reverse is higher energy.  There is not net gain or loss, but a lot of energy can be involved in creating the difference.  That's how AC power works, by the way.)  This explains red/blue shift and differences in perception between viewpoints.

Please also note that the numbers generated are perceived, not actual.  There is a baseline of space and time, independent of every observer.  If this were not so, then photons could not exist, move, and change.  To a photon, all space is the same point, and all time is the same time.  Where would they travel, and when would they change?

Please also note that spacetime has an exact meaning.  Motion is space divided by time.  Therefore, for motion to exist, there must be a field governing both space and time.  And for that to work, along with the basis of quantum theory, there must be a minimum time and a shortest distance.  There must also be a largest possible energy, along with a lowest possible (non-zero) energy.

There is no disconnect between relativity and quantum theory.  There are no paradoxes.  Infinities exist only in the mathematical descriptions.  Scientists, being human, often forget (or never learn) that the map is not the territory.  The math is not the reality.

Quantum randomization is the effect of quantized waves interacting over a smooth spacetime.  Integer based distances interacting while moving on a real number line always round up or down, but which way they round is based entirely upon things you cannot detect, since all you can see is the integers themselves.  Everything is deterministic, yet simultaneously random through the wonderful effects of mathematical chaos.  Small differences can have major effects.  Or sometimes not.

Are black holes hollow?

First off, watch this:  PBS Spacetime

The most interesting take - the entire energy budget of a black hole can exist on its surface.  The surface area expands linearly with energy.

Huh.  So that means that black holes could be hollow.  Absolutely nothing would exist inside the hollow shell.  Which actually makes sense, if the bottom limit to the spacetime energy field is zero, not some negative number presumably smaller than infinity.  And our universe ends at the edge of the real number line, and does not enter the complex plane.

It also explains how black holes can have an electric charge that affects anything outside themselves.  (Work with me here.  If black holes derive from point-like singularities inside the event horizon, and electric fields propagate at the speed of light, then the electric field cannot flow from the singularity to out beyond the event horizon.  Both of these things cannot be simultaneously true.)

Of course, the inside of a black hole would still be the place on the map labeled, "Here be dragons."  There could be an absolute nothingness inside, devoid of all energy.  Or, perhaps, the place where the complex plane impinges and intersects with our "real" universe.  Remember, the gravity at every point inside a hollow sphere is equal to the gravity at the shell of the sphere.

Merry Christmas!

A very merry Christmas to you and yours, from me and mine.

"For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

DOD delenda est

The Pentagon, and the DOD leadership and management as a whole, is completely and utterly broken.  Not only are they a bunch of weasels, they are, for the most part, sniveling, incompetent, cowardly weasels.

As example #1, the Air Farce is still slow-rolling the light attack aircraft program into oblivion.  We've only known we needed these ground support planes for 17 years now.  That's 4 world wars, if you're counting.  Read Commander Salamander's thoughts on the subject.  

This leads me to something I've been contemplating for quite some time now.  The Pentagon concentrates all its attention, money, and cronyism on preparing (badly) for "the big one."  This degrades the existing forces, in addition to using sledgehammers to kill mosquitoes.

It's time and past time to build a completely separate organization, dedicated to fighting LIC/insurgencies. This new organization needs to be completely separate from the rest of the DOD. It should include ground, air, and brown water components. The ground component needs to be wheeled, leg, and airmobile infantry, with supporting arms and sustainment services. The air component needs to be surveillance, ground support, transport, and sustainment, and a complete ban on supersonic aircraft. The brown water component needs to have patrol, sustainment, and transport capabilities, along with a few cutters seconded for near-shore (dare I say littoral?) work.

Write it into their charter that the entire service may not employ, directly or indirectly, more than 4% commissioned officers, with a further 4% warrant officers authorized.

Women "warriors"

What Mr. Briggs said.  "Women warriors are like pizza bagels."

Since this topic came up, I felt the need to comment on just what a bad idea this is, has been, and forever will be.

Women may handle household stresses better than men, but they don’t handle battlefield stresses at all.

Coed barracks work exactly like coed college dorms, but with extra added drama, and the chance of sudden death during the work day.

Women perform adequately in limited roles in a static defense. There have been successful women snipers, for example.

Women perform admirably in noncombat support roles, like intelligence, nursing, and the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned paperwork shuffling.

Women perform absolutely abysmally in any direct combat role. They are useless in the assault, and worse than useless when defending against an assault.

History lesson – In WWII, the Soviets fielded a few all-female large units. The Germans reacted to this development by acting as if those units were gaps in the Soviet lines. They weren’t wrong. The Soviets soon withdrew and disbanded these units, sending the women to support positions in the rear.

Men are irrational in the presence of women. Women utterly destroy the morale and cohesion of any combat unit they are in. Not to mention being completely useless at 90% of necessary tasks in the field, due to being too physically weak. There is a tradition of women “paying” men to do their chores out in the field, because they simply can’t, or don’t want to.

Personal story – When I was in 7th Army PLDC (Sergeant School), lo these many years ago, I was in a mixed squad. Oh, how the women told us that they were just as good as we men were at everything. No, they were even better! Then we went out in the field, and only one of the four females acted like a soldier. (The butch lesbian. Go figure.) When I was squad leader, I gave the M-60 machine gun to one, the tripod and spare ammo to another, and the PRC-77 radio and batteries to the third useless complainer. I made them carry their share of the load until they sat down, cried, and refused to go any further. That took all of about 20 minutes, during which we had marched less than a mile. Then I took everything from them. Their combined loads, plus what I was already carrying. And humped all of it the entire rest of the day without complaint, and without slowing down. (I weighed 142 pounds back then, and was carrying at least that much load.) I even had them give up their personal packs for other squad members to carry, since they were so tired and weak and frail. They didn’t tell us how wonderful they all were again after that. And nobody else put up with their malingering bull#@% after that, either.