tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5983563776019477979.post2866955210245664132..comments2016-04-04T05:00:21.614-07:00Comments on Tehom: Spontaneous Dimensional ReductionTehomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14836581076251384864noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5983563776019477979.post-78699302692874146852013-12-19T14:08:41.469-08:002013-12-19T14:08:41.469-08:00I've had a non-specific sense for years (hey, ...I've had a non-specific sense for years (hey, I like to poke at things to see where their weak points are) that special relativity might be wrong somewhere at the upper end (near c). (Maybe I just don't think the race between Achilles and the tortoise shouldn't /really/ stretch out indefinitely.) This new angle on self-energy puts me in mind of that, but I can't quite wrap my head around the connection --- and there's something very odd going on when one starts looking to punch holes in relativity using a theory that, if I'm following rightly, was grounded in the first place on relativity.John Shutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00041398073010099077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5983563776019477979.post-27285041758256169042013-12-17T10:19:25.944-08:002013-12-17T10:19:25.944-08:00From what I understand, that's exactly right. ...From what I understand, that's exactly right. There'd be some minute scale at which space was 1 dimensional, and at scales smaller than that, the force doesn't increase.<br /><br />There's a bit of a race going on there. The gravitational force wants to make space curve, but the logic here is that you zoom in close enough to flatten the curvature near zero to approximate a Kasner solution - but zooming in means the gravitational force is closer and therefore stronger, therefore you need to zoom in more than that, etc.<br /><br />Somewhere (don't have the reference at hand) the BKL singularity guys (Belinski, Khalatnikov and Lipschitz, if I haven't slaughtered their names) argue that flattening wins the race, or a similar race. This was their original motivation, I think. They investigated the BKL singularity to make sense of the big bang singularity; I didn't follow that in detail.<br /><br />I should qualify what I just said. Any Kasner solution has a singularity of a different sort. The Kasner metric picks out a particular time t0, and volume is proportional to time. In most solutions, two of the three dimensions go to zero at t0 and the third becomes infinite, so at t0 there's a line-like singularity. There's also one solution where one dimension vanishes at t=t0 and the other two dimensions don't change with time.<br /><br />So qualifiers aside, yes, that's right as I understand it.<br />Tehomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14836581076251384864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5983563776019477979.post-24731954949443940812013-12-17T04:47:43.517-08:002013-12-17T04:47:43.517-08:00To an outsider (for some purposes I'm a physic...To an outsider (for some purposes I'm a physics insider, but today I'm definitely an outsider) it seems the self-energy problem is why one supposes a singularity at the heart of a black hole. So, would I be right in inferring that under this approach black holes wouldn't have singularities?John Shutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00041398073010099077noreply@blogger.com