Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

Quote

On 2/17/2021 at 8:09 AM, OceanBreeze said:
Here is an extremely well written and informative paper that is directly related to the subject matter in this thread that I think everyone who is interested in this subject will enjoy reading and discussing

IS SPACE DISCRETE? AN INQUIRY INTO THE REALITY OF PLANCK LENGTH AND ITS PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS, Zhen Liang 

Quote

Nevertheless, despite these physical manifestations championing for the legitimacy of Planck length, it is the rise of LQG theory that really places Planck length in the centerstage, making it a possible ground for a unification theory potentially. Thus, let us take a quick trip to the early days of the theory to see how Planck length achieved its paramount significance.

Quote

In his Three Roads to Quantum Gravity14, Lee Smolin offers a brief account of the founding story and early development of LQG. Smolin’s narration provides us with a glimpse of how the Planck scale units have gained their theoretical and even physical importance. Attempting to unite general relativity with quantum mechanics, theoretical physicists strive to explain gravity at the quantum level without a recourse to any fixed background (i.e., a fixed space continuum is that on which quantum mechanics is built upon)

Quote

Inspired by theorists working on QCD (quantum chromodynamics), Smolin and his colleagues, instead of working on theories that are dependent on a spacetime continuum, found their work on the assumption that space should be conceived as discrete. More radical than physicists such as Kenneth Wilson, leader of QCD, who conceive a discrete but fixed lattice of space, Smolin and contributors to LQG eliminate the dependency on background once for all, and moreover, they define space as the interrelations among a set of discrete elementary objects. That is to say: according to LQG theory, space is actually made of small chunks that are no longer divisible and each chunk of space is created by a set of relations of the most elementary objects (which are defined by them as the “loops”)

 

Quote

No surprise, based on the calculations made by these physicists, each discrete piece of indivisible space is at the Planck scale. Thus, the smallest length is about the Planck length, the smallest surface is around the Planck area (the square of the Planck length), and the same extends to the three-dimensional space, Planck volume, as well. If the “proofs” of the reality of Planck length by Uncertainty Principle and black hole formation are reductio ad absurdum — assuming a smaller space and demonstrating its absurdity, Smolin and his peers are attempting a much greater task — they no longer try to just prove the reality of Planck length, rather they 13

Quote

 We will address the philosophical implications of these positions in more details later in this paper. 14 The two chapters that are most pertinent to our discussion here on the discreteness of spacetime and Planck length are Chapters 9 & 10 “How to count space” and “Knots, links and kinks”. COSMOS AND HISTORY 528 “elevate” Planck length to the status of the grounding principle of their entire theory. However, just as all roads lead to Rome, it seems that different approaches all lead to Planck length. Does this mean that the verdict has been reached on the reality of Planck length and we should celebrate the triumph of a discrete space?

https://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/872/1539

 

This is very interesting and seems to relate to a new but very promising hypothesis of  Causal Dynamical Triangulation, developed by Renate Loll, et al .

Quote

 

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

Quote

There is evidence [1] that at large scales CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

I have mentioned this before, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of people familiar with this new perspective.

And a question; If spacetime is expanding, how does this affect SOL?  Does light go faster than "c"  as space expands, or does it take more time for light to traverse the expanded space?

Any takers?

Edited by write4u
added detail
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, write4u said:

And a question; If spacetime is expanding, how does this affect SOL?  Does light go faster than "c"  as space expands, or does it take more time for light to traverse the expanded space?

Any takers?

There is space, which is 3 dimensional distance, ie volume, measured as cubic meters.

There are objects of mass that reside in space.

The meter, which is a unit of measure of distance, is defined as the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second. Therefore, the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s.

Space itself is not expanding, it's the objects of mass that are expanding, ie solar systems are expanding, galaxies are expanding, universes are expanding, multiverses are expanding.

Light travels at 299,792,458 m/s in space. If objects are expanding their size and getting farther from each other, and there is more space between the objects, then it takes light more time to travel that greater distance. 

Even if light somehow changed it's rate of travel in space, the speed of light would still be 299,792,458 m/s, by definition. The only thing that would be different is the length of the meter. 

The universe can be thought of as a drop of water being turned into steam. The particles of the universe are getting less dense and occupying a greater volume of space, with more space between the elements. Light just has to travel a greater distance and a greater time, at the same speed as usual, 299,792,458 m/s.

Edited by Motor Daddy
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Motor Daddy said:

Space itself is not expanding, it's the objects of mass that are expanding, ie solar systems are expanding, galaxies are expanding, universes are expanding, multiverses are expanding.

That brings another question: Are you proposing that there is space outside of the universe into which the universe is expanding?

I always thought that our universe is spacetime which is expanding, not into another space but into a permittive nothingness which existed prior to the BB and allowed for the initial expansion (inflationary epoch) to occur at greater than "c", because in a nothingness spacetime mathematics could not yet exist. They came with the creation of spacetime.

Inflationary epoch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote

In physical cosmology the inflationary epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe when, according to inflation theory, the universe underwent an extremely rapid exponential expansion. This rapid expansion increased the linear dimensions of the early universe by a factor of at least 1026 (and possibly a much larger factor), and so increased its volume by a factor of at least 1078. Expansion by a factor of 1026 is equivalent to expanding an object 1 nanometer (10−9 m, about half the width of a molecule of DNA) in length to one approximately 10.6 light years (about 62 trillion miles) long.

Description

Quote

The expansion is thought to have been triggered by the phase transition that marked the end of the preceding grand unification epoch at approximately 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang. One of the theoretical products of this phase transition was a scalar field called the inflaton field. As this field settled into its lowest energy state throughout the universe, it generated a repulsive force that led to a rapid expansion of space. This expansion explains various properties of the current universe that are difficult to account for without such an inflationary epoch.

Quote

It is not known exactly when the inflationary epoch ended, but it is thought to have been between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds after the Big Bang. The rapid expansion of space meant that elementary particles remaining from the grand unification epoch were now distributed very thinly across the universe. However, the huge potential energy of the inflaton field was released at the end of the inflationary epoch, repopulating the universe with a dense, hot mixture of quarks, anti-quarks and gluons as it entered the electroweak epoch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch

 

I cannot believe that the inflationary epoch was due to the Cherenkov radiation

Quote

Cherenkov radiation (/əˈrɛŋkɒf/;[1] Russian: Черенков) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through a dielectric medium at a speed greater than the phase velocity (speed of propagation of a wave in a medium) of light in that medium. Special relativity is not violated since light travels slower in materials with refractive index greater than one, and it is the speed of light in a vacuum which cannot be reached (or exceeded) by particles with mass. A classic example of Cherenkov radiation is the characteristic blue glow of an underwater nuclear reactor. Its cause is similar to the cause of a sonic boom, the sharp sound heard when faster-than-sound movement occurs. The phenomenon is named for Soviet physicist Pavel Cherenkov, who shared the 1958 Nobel Prize in Physics for its discovery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

If the inflationary epoch was due to to the Cherenkov radiation, where did the medium come from? If there was no medium, how could space itself expand at FTL, especially if energy is quantized?

Something doesn't add up here !

Edited by write4u
Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a Photon?

Quote

A photon is the carrier of the electromagnetic force and is the quantum form of all electromagnetic radiation. This includes, light, radio waves, microwaves, X-rays, gamma rays and more. The most common to humans is visible light, which we detect with the retinas in our eyes. However, if our eyes were tuned to radio waves we’d be able to see FM and AM radio waves, responsible for audio, travel throughout the air. Light, radio waves and the aforementioned wave types are based upon the same electromagnetic wave, but each one occurs at different frequency ranges. The complete electromagnetic spectrum is found below.

Electromagnetic spectrum

 

Quote

 

Electromagnetic Spectrum

The photon is said to be in ‘quantum form’ because the electromagnetic wave is not a continuous wave. It is made of discrete parts, called photons. This became apparent in the late 1800s during an experiment called the photoelectric effect.

Questions

  • Why do photons have energy but not mass, yet particles have both energy and mass?
  • How can photons create matter out of nothing in a process called pair production?

 


Explanation

In energy wave theory, a photon is generated by the vibration of particles, traveling perpendicular to the direction of vibration.

Photon Creation

Quote

In the particles section, particles were described as waves of energy, creating standing waves from in-waves and out-waves. The out-waves of these particles are longitudinal waves, but when a particle vibrates, it also creates a secondary, transverse wave. A faster vibration causes a photon with a shorter wavelength and greater energy and a slower vibration causes a photon with a longer wavelength and lower energy.  This results in the different types of waves seen in the electromagnetic spectrum (e.g. x-rays versus radio waves).

animated photon creation process from particle vibration

Quote

The photon is typically described as an electromagnetic (EM) wave, such as the image below.  These are the two components of the wave (longitudinal and transverse).  Longitudinal waves constantly flow from particles, causing an electric field even when a particle is not in motion. When a particle spins or vibrates, a transverse wave also forms and is recognized as the magnetic field.

PhotonEM wave of the photon

 

Quote

 

Photon Creation and Absorption

There are a handful of different ways that photons are both created by particles and absorbed by particles. But in all cases, it is a change of wave forms between longitudinal wave energy and transverse energy and vice versa.  Unlike a particle which has wave centers that create standing, longitudinal waves measured as mass, the photon is a packet of traveling waves.  Therefore, it has energy but not mass.

 

The detailed processes and explanation for these photon interactions is found on this page.

Where is the Proof?

Quote

 

Photon wavelengths and energies were calculated using the transverse equations. The equations for wavelength and energy were derived from the same energy wave equation as longitudinal energy for particles, which connects particles and photons and how they can transfer energy from one form to another (transverse to longitudinal and vice versa). The calculations include the following:

  • Calculations
    • Calculations of hydrogen photon wavelengths for ionization and orbital transitions
    • Calculations of 250+ photon energies for ionization of hydrogen to calcium (neutral and ionized elements).
    • Calculations of the conversion of particle energy to photon energy for annihilation, orbital transitions and ionization
  • Explanations
    • An explanation for the photoelectric effect and other photon creation and absorption processes matching experimental observations, including particle annihilation, pair production, Compton scattering and orbital transitions.

 

 

https://energywavetheory.com/photons/#

Edited by write4u
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, write4u said:

That brings another question: Are you proposing that there is space outside of the universe into which the universe is expanding?

Space is volume, which is 3 dimensional distance. Our planet/moon system is an object that resides in space. Our solar system is an object that resides in space. Our galaxy is an object that resides in space. Our universe is an object that resides in space. Our multiverse is an object that resides in space. 

Space is simply volume. There is no boundary to the volume of space, it is infinite. Contents of the volume are objects of mass with finite boundaries, but the boundaries are expanding in volume. 

Our planet/moon system, along with other planet/moon systems of our solar system orbit the nucleus of our solar system, the Sun.

Our solar system, along with other solar systems of our galaxy orbit the nucleus of our galaxy, a black hole.

Our universe, along with other universes orbit the nucleus of our multiverse.

 

The entire SYSTEM resides in SPACE, which is infinite volume (infinite 3 dimensional distance). Space is volume irrespective of the content. The content of space are systems such as planet/moon systems, solar systems, galaxies, universes, multiverses.

 

The systems are getting less dense, meaning they are increasing in volume. So our solar system for example is getting less dense by the planets getting farther from the sun. Our solar system is growing in volume, which means the original mass is getting less dense. The solar system as a complete system is, for lack of a better term, evaporating! So too is our universe evaporating. That's what systems do, they get less dense by expanding their volume. Mass evolves to space!

Edited by Motor Daddy
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Motor Daddy said:

Space is volume, which is 3 dimensional distance. Our planet/moon system is an object that resides in space

Are you proposing that spacetime is continuous and that only the multiverse is a collection of quantized objects? That does not make logical sense to me. In my model a prior state of "permittive nothingness" is arguably a continuous singularity and spacetime is an emergent quantized mathematical (geometric) phenomenon.

So, what singularity caused the BB and what was created by the BB? 

How do you explain this hypothesis: 

Quote

A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, initially published on January 10, 2012 by Free Press. It discusses modern cosmogony and its implications for the debate about the existence of God. The main theme of the book is how "we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing—involving the absence of space itself and—which may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing

Krauss explicitly states that space was absent before the BB. 

IOW,  space was created and that prior to space only a state of permittive "nothing"  allowed for the emerging and expansion of space itself.

Nothing

Quote

"Nothing", used as a pronoun subject, is the absence of a something or particular thing that one might expect or desire to be present ("We found nothing", "Nothing was there") or the inactivity of a thing or things that are usually or could be active ("Nothing moved", "Nothing happened"). As a predicate or complement "nothing" is the absence of meaning, value, worth, relevance, standing, or significance ("It is a tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/ Signifying nothing"; "The affair meant nothing"; "I'm nothing in their eyes").[1] "Nothingness" is a philosophical term for the general state of nonexistence, sometimes reified as a domain or dimension into which things pass when they cease to exist or out of which they may come to exist, e.g., God is understood to have created the universe ex nihilo, "out of nothing"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

Edited by write4u
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, write4u said:

Are you proposing that spacetime is continuous and that only the multiverse is a collection of quantized objects? That does not make logical sense to me. In my model a prior state of "permittive nothingness" is arguably a continuous singularity and spacetime is an emergent quantized mathematical (geometric) phenomenon.

So, what singularity caused the BB and what was created by the BB? 

How do you explain this hypothesis: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing

Krauss explicitly states that space was absent before the BB. 

IOW,  space was created and that prior to space only a state of permittive "nothing"  allowed for the emerging and expansion of space itself.

Like I said before, SPACE is infinite volume. Think of the space in your living room as a finite space with boundaries. Say it has a length of 10 meters, a width of 10 meters, and a height of 3 meters. It therefore has a VOLUME of 10 x 10 x 3 = 300 CUBIC METERS. No need to talk about the furniture, the carpet, the TV, or the light. It simply has a VOLUME of 300 cubic meters irrespective of the contents. The massive objects contained in the living room are contents of the living room. 

In the same context, SPACE is simply volume, but there are no boundaries, no limiting walls to measure within. It is simply infinite SPACE, of which contains objects of mass such as multiverses, universes, galaxies, solar systems, and planet/moon systems.

Infinite space is inevitable, there is no other option. To say "space was created" means there was no space prior to creating it, and that is impossible. Space is not mass, it is volume, which is simply 3 dimensional distance. Point in any direction and that line is infinite, there is no end to the line of direction you point, it is simply infinite. Now do that 3 dimensional and the VOLUME is infinite unbounded space!

Edited by Motor Daddy
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Motor Daddy said:

Now do that 3 dimensional and the VOLUME is infinite unbounded space!

Is the spacetime fabric not 2 dimensional?

Quote

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.

Quote

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

Quote

There is evidence [1] that at large scales CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

Apparently time is created by the addition of 2D slices of space, where no prior space existed. Consider the concept of a "permittive nothingness"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, write4u said:

Is the spacetime fabric not 2 dimensional?

No. A square or circle has two dimensions and a cube or sphere has three dimensions. Two dimensions is an area, or plane. Three dimensions is a volume. Space is three dimensional volume, not a two dimensional area. 

A two dimensional area would have units of square meters, or m^2. A three dimensional volume has units of cubic meters, or m^3. Earth occupies a volume of space, not an area of space.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2021 at 3:50 PM, Motor Daddy said:

No. A square or circle has two dimensions and a cube or sphere has three dimensions. Two dimensions is an area, or plane. Three dimensions is a volume. Space is three dimensional volume, not a two dimensional area. 

A two dimensional area would have units of square meters, or m^2. A three dimensional volume has units of cubic meters, or m^3. Earth occupies a volume of space, not an area of space.

That sounds entirely reasonable, but.......... is that what E = Mc^2 suggests?

Quote

Is matter really condensed energy patterns?

Quote

Let's look at another reaction. Let's combine a proton and an anti-proton. In this reaction, the proton and anti-proton TOTALLY ANIHILLATE. That is, they convert 100% of their mass into energy. They don't just break apart or anything like that, they totally convert into a gamma ray photon with energy equal to that predicted by Einstein. This is a well known and often measured reaction in the laboratory (e.g.: CERN's Large Hadron Collider).

 
Well, both these reactions are actually showing how matter can 'evaporate' into energy. (Speaking VERY loosely!). But the original statement is about 'condensation'. Does that really happen? Can we take just energy and produce matter? The answer to that question is 'yes'.
7th Nov, 2013
Cambridge Polymer Group, Inc.

 

Quote

Key Takeaways

  • Matter has mass and occupies volume.
  • Heat, light, and other forms of electromagnetic energy do not have measurable mass and can't be contained in a volume.
  • Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa.
  • Matter and energy are often found together. An example is a fire.

If matter is a form of wave, then according to de Broglie wave theory, space is a layered set of wave planes.

Quote

 

Wavefronts usually move with time. For waves propagating in an unidimensional medium, the wavefronts are usually single points; they are curves in a two dimensional medium, and surfaces in a three-dimensional one.

Quote

For a sinusoidal plane wave, the wavefronts are planes perpendicular to the direction of propagation, that move in that direction together with the wave. For a sinusoidal spherical wave, the wavefronts are spherical surfaces that expand with it. If the speed of propagation is different at different points of a wavefront, the shape and/or orientation of the wavefronts may change by refraction. In particular, lenses can change the shape of optical wavefronts from planar to spherical, or vice versa.

220px-Plane_wave_wavefronts_3D.svg.png The wavefronts of a plane wave are planes.

and the proof that waves do not occupy volume may be found here

Lens_and_wavefronts.gif Wavefronts change shape after going through a lens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefront

 

p.s. which brings up the question id gravity is a wave passing a massive object.  Kinda like;

Ripples in spacetime are what gravitational waves are, and they travel through space at the speed of... [+] light in all directions. Although the constants of electromagnetism never appear in the equations for Einstein's General Relativity, the speed of gravity undoubtedly equals the speed of light. Here's why.

Ripples in spacetime are what gravitational waves are, and they travel through space at the speed of... [+]

 EUROPEAN GRAVITATIONAL OBSERVATORY, LIONEL BRET/EUROLIOS

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/10/24/this-is-why-the-speed-of-gravity-must-equal-the-speed-of-light/?sh=27c765762fc0

Just musing.......................................................images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSPLwBoVFIv2CVPgodj1BBH9PDup-L0J2K3B4d9OvY&usqp=CAU

Edited by write4u
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...