Inside the box thinking about gravity in the SM

In this thread. I will be discussing Gravity. And, how it might fit the Standard Model.

Although, it is based on analysis of my own model. Which differs from the accepted SM. And is very difficult to understand (which i appreciate). Hence. I won't link it.

Mine differs in interpretation of the colour charges. And the Quarks names.

The colour charges are red/green/blue. They make the light we can see.

At the big bang. The universe expanded rapidly. And all the energy (essentially light). Spread throughout the early Universe in six main directions. Forwards, backwards. Left, right. Up and down.

Based on the above. The colour charges are r/g/b. Positive and negative. They each emerge from a single point. Propagating to create three axis'. A pos and neg. B pos and neg. C pos and neg.

They are directional. And make the three dimensions we know.

Pairing the colour charge to the direction based on A pos is forward, A neg is backwards. It is green. B is up,down pos and neg.
It is blue. C is right,left pos and neg. Blue and red chosen for spectrum and vertical/horizontal. Green was the one remaining.

This diagram explains the above.



As it propagates. It spins very quickly. And at a point of the propagation. A Lagrangian Point is formed. And the six ends of the axis' are connected together. As the following diagram shows.



The above diagram shows a 3d cube. It is also an optical illusion. As it is a 2d drawing of a 3d cube.

Evidence for it being a cube.

In the first diagram. The axis' propagated from the centre of the cube (whose six sides are r/g/b pos and neg). And It is spinning. And diagram 2 shows it spun 1 part with the corners now looking like arrows of r/g/b. With sides of mixed colours. These are waves propagating. And the corners are what were essentially the flat sides of the part spin previous.

The axis' and directions remain fixed. The cube of energy spins.

In the second diagram. The cube only has three coloured axis'. Also. Being an optical illusion. The near top corner and the far bottom corner are both hidden by the centre of the cube.

Even if there were a forth axis. There is no forth colour.

The undefined colour corners have no defined axis. Also, an axis would have to run top to bottom of the cube as well as across it. Through the up, down axis.

Which might explain Gravity?

Although the near top and far bottom colour is undefined. They sit forming a relationship between the forward,right and backwards,left position. in a top to bottom of cube connection.
The relationship being. The distance of the action of the directions.

Diagram 3 explains above.



The two undefined corners shown near the centre (illusions as they are actually the nearest and furthest corners of the cube) are a push pull effect. From neg infinity to pos infinity.

a reply to: blackcrowe

SnF for your thinking about this. I'm not sure what the answer is but I believe the void of Space is infinite while the Universe of physical things is finite.

a reply to: blackcrowe

Flagged for later reading, do believe our current science on gravity is flawed....

a reply to: lostbook

I don't know the answer either.

I'm simply highlighting the observations of the cube in the model. And what i think it represents.

Thanks .

a reply to: manuelram16

Many great minds have pondered these questions over the years.

So. My model is likely to be flawed too.

But it is fun to ponder.

Thanks.

We are on a ball that's spinning really fast And that ball is shooting through space, why can't that in itself create a force that keeps us grounded?

a reply to: tayton

The ball is the matter we recognise.

The thread OP is a long way before any matter ever existed.

It (the force that keeps us grounded) was already there.

Thanks.

originally posted by: tayton
We are on a ball that's spinning really fast And that ball is shooting through space, why can't that in itself create a force that keeps us grounded?

If it were just those things, and Earth had no gravitational pull on us, then the spinning should fling us off and objects should fall away from the trailing side of the ball shooting through space.

What's keeping us from being flung away by the spinning?
What's holding stuff on the trailing side as the ball shoots through space?
[Hint: It's Earth's gravity]

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

What's keeping us from being flung away by the spinning, and what's holding stuff on the trailing side as the ball shoots through space? [Hint: It's Earth's gravity]

Which is at a Lagrangian Point as mentioned in the OP.

They hold the whole cube together.

Surfing is how gravity works.
Its a wave you groms..

Cymatic levitation is the physical mimic of gravity. Easily observed in the galaxies, everything in physical reality is held together by magic waves

a reply to: AnodeOrCathode

It certainly seems like magic.

Sets of Lagrangian points. Spinning and propagating/expanding. Holding a cube shape together. And scaling all directions infinitely.

The waves are the corners of the cube propagating. Waves travelling at the speed of light. They are pointed waves.

All from a set of basic functions. It seems.

There is no magic. Only nature.

Thanks.

a reply to: blackcrowe

A good stab at it I would say.

Rather than the explosion going in cardinal directions I would say that due to no objects in the way of the explosion, it would have to be in a Spherical release if any at all. The bonds of the shapes you suggest would certainly be readily made to create objects from the initial big explosion. However, those patterns used in higher mathematical equations would not be an accurate portrayal of the direction the explosive energy will vector (< >) when released from my experience.

a reply to: Justoneman

I would say that due to no objects in the way of the explosion, it would have to be in a Spherical release if any at all.

I don't think it was an explosion. It was an expansion from a single point.

The cube would look spherical. As it is spinning horizontally and vertically. Very very quickly. It is creating a neg to pos infinity of scalable cubes of energy (dark energy).They make up a cubed grid throughout space (infinitely small to infinitely large). A fabric of space.

The axis' in the model are directions. They are also dimensions. As noted in the OP.

I don't see how a sphere would have the same advantages. You can't neatly fit balls together. And. There are no directions in a ball.

We obviously do see spherical waves like water waves. But. Spherical is caused by a distortion/resistance of a wave trying to pass through a medium. And they are also very slow compared to light waves travelling at c and propagating with no resistance.

Thanks.

After more analysis of the undefined colour particles and axis.

It seems to be a relativistic scale.

The directions/dimensions are 0 at centre. And propagate to 50+-.

In the diagram below are two undefined colour (purple for representation) axis' which are 50+- at centre to 0. And 100+- to 50+- where 100 = infinity.

Drawn as two axis' to simplify. But may be only one axis. As OP suggests.

The diagram is rotated left 1/6 from the OP's. Which hides the up/down axis with the fw/bw axis.

A subject of great interest to me.

My question is, and I don't know whether it can be proved mathematically or not: Has there ever been, or could there exist, zero point gravity in this universe. By zero point I mean the total absence of gravity, therefore, no mass, no virtual particles. Gravity isn't a force. It's a result of space-time curvature. My hypothesis is that proving or disproving zero point gravity in this universe may change the way we describe the beginning/end of this universe.
It just occurred while in my theoretical physics group that zero point gravity has never been defined.
This is more of a gedanken exercise.

originally posted by: Phantom423
A subject of great interest to me.

My question is, and I don't know whether it can be proved mathematically or not: Has there ever been, or could there exist, zero point gravity in this universe. By zero point I mean the total absence of gravity, therefore, no mass, no virtual particles.

According to the physicist on minute physics, you, me, him, and everyone else are all products of a flawed education system that teaches us that mass is the source of gravity which it's not. He's probably right, so you're on the wrong track asking about "no mass" with respect to gravity:

Common Physics Misconceptions


Theoretically, right after the big bang there was gravity everywhere but it was the same in all directions. So if you imagine two equally strong people having a tug of war pulling on a rope, and you're a particle attached to the center of the rope, there are forces being applied but they cancel each other out. I wouldn't call that "no gravity", but the gravitational effect was close to zero, except for some quantum fluctuations which we think now show up in the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background), which eventually caused the formation of galaxies and non-uniform gravity.

a reply to: Phantom423

Yes. It is a thought experiment.

Zero point gravity?

To me would suggest a Lagrangian Point. A point of no repulsion and no attraction.

In this threads diagrams. The Lagrangian Points are where the negatives and positives meet. 8 corners (gluons). As it spins. Six at the sides. But not yet sure if there will be two more undefined. Could be 8 there too.

At this point of the model. It is D/E only. Zero. As the particle expands. And reaches a point of creating the matter we know (Photon). The matter is represented to us as a -1 (0) )+1. where 0 is the Lagrangian Point. But where 1+- is to infinity+- Universally. From zero to infinity+-.

One more scale to add. Shown in the diagram below. Is the observable Universe. I believe at this stage. Observable light.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
Mine differs in interpretation of the colour charges. And the Quarks names.

The colour charges are red/green/blue. They make the light we can see.

I call hijacking and re-defining established terminology "dictionary abuse". It's an impediment to communication because words have meanings and if you don't use them that way, it's hard to understand what you're talking about. The color charges of the quarks are unrelated to the light we can see, so it's really confusing babble to redefine terms so they are, and then give no explanation of the relationship between them and the light we can see (maybe because there isn't one).

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Phantom423

Yes. It is a thought experiment.

Zero point gravity?

To me would suggest a Lagrangian Point. A point of no repulsion and no attraction.

Now you hijack another term, Lagrangian point, or else you misunderstand what a Lagrangian Point is. There is lots of attraction going on at Lagrangian points, so to say there's no attraction is not true.
Here's a graphic of the 5 Lagrangian points:

commons.wikimedia.org...:Lagrangian_points_equipotential.gif

They are all moving, and the movement is not in a straight line, which means objects at the Lagrangian points are being accelerated in the direction of the sun which would be impossible if they were points of "no repulsion and no attraction" as you suggest.

Just thinking outloud here - if the Planck length is the minimum length we can measure and is related to the limit of the amount of energy before it collapses into a black hole, then nature has put a restriction on what we know and what we can't know? In other words, there's no way to extrapolate the gravity component of the Schwartzchild radius. But what if it were possible? If all the components were quantized in a way that allowed us to extrapolate the gravity component to zero?

You might need to define time though. research biefield brown effect. time and gravity are interconnected.