Science Forums

The Universe's Primary Number & Gravity

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Rc3D said:

Prepare for the worst.

I don't converse with petulant children.  I can't learn from them and I don't want to waste my time trying to teach them.

• Replies 36
• Created

Popular Days

Yes he is right on that one, there are a finite set of numbers which describe the universe and he may even be right about their simplicities

Share on other sites

Here's a more crucial issue. Suppose we assume that mathematics and science is capable of ascertaining the universe by simple ascribable numbers, can we be certain that these simple numbers did not come from something completely irrational as we understand it? I'll give a really rudimentary example in lines of the answer to everything by the famous qoute as 42 (hitchhikers guide to the universe), let us say that everything came from 131.3333333 (and so on). That in itself isn't simple by heuristically looking at it, it's not a simple whole number in itself, but now say that this number is ascribed by some other numbers containing 394 parts divided by 3 space dimensions. You'd have to explain and describe physically how those 394 parts arise in the universe and then we have some while, simple numbers not necessarily describing a rational number, yet it is not irrational as we understand the terminology in mathematics, the number can be expressed as the ratio of two integers. This is where human rationality and irrationality and that which is found as definitions in mathematics appears askew. It's like order from chaos, we may think the ultimate calculation or number for a universe appears irrational to the mind but can have very definite interpretations. Further, by hypothetically speaking of course, the answer to everything was 131.33333+, we would need to figure out the parameters as to why the universe comes to certain exact numbers in the way they do. Saying the universe is ascribed by some exact numbers is not enough, we need to explain why it is the way they are.

Edited by Dubbelosix
Share on other sites

Too add some extra stirring to the pot, I now qoute from wiki,

"As a consequence of Cantor's proof that the real numbers are uncountable and the rationals countable, it follows that almost all real numbers are irrational."

so the whole idea that the universe is ascribed by simple numbers, may not be as simple as we might think.

Edited by Dubbelosix
Share on other sites

You lost me when you started talking about gravitons, it has no relation to what us being discussed. Call me wrong all you want, while I shout back word salad.

Share on other sites

No it isn't. There is no quantum bridge to gravity and only those with a limited understanding of relativity make such claims.

Edited by Dubbelosix
Share on other sites

In fact I've just had a lengthy discussion of this topic on a post from Facebook where Smolin discusses the issues between space and time. I extended the discussion;

"There are at least three competitive models, the first makes no sense to me, that the big bang occurred from a point with no spatial dimensions, so the birth of the universe in this model would say big bang happened in a moment of time instead of space, but space and time are unified as one and the same in general relativity. .  So this seems iffy. Likewise, another model states no time exists at all and all there is, is motion and the changes of things relative to each other from entropy. The third says that the big bang happened both in space and time and did not come from a singular pointlike region."

"Time is both global and local if and only if the universe has a clock. But to say this means that time is absolute globally. This is still a real issue, because the quantization efforts of gravity appears to say the universe has no clock from the Wheeler de Witt equation, essentially, global time may not exist. It may not even exist in a quantum realm because the quantization of gravity yields divergences that are extremely ugly."

I was then asked whether time is emergent

"Some say gravity itself is emergent. Because of this,  some have concluded by deduction space is also emergent. If we run physics as we understand it back to the radiation phase, where no matter exists, then time in relativity vanishes altogether!"

Then I was asked if the issue of the quantization gravity has anything to do with open or closed systems,

"You see closed and open are phrases to whether there is a boundary to the universe. While you could loosely say that an observer watching the universe from the outside would see no changes, there has been undeniably changes in the universe since big bang. It's more accurate to say the measure of time arose when spontaneous symmetry breaking occurred where radiation fields gave birth to all matter fields. It's a loophole issue though, what is more fundamental? It's wise to say we don't really know right now, but if the universe had a point where it was dominated by massless radiation, the Wheeler de Witt equation could be indirectly pointing to this, even if the equation cannot explain it in a quantized way, in the sense that gravity is not quantizable. It shouldn't be really, from the first principles of general relativity where gravity is a manifest pseudoforce and is quite unlike the electric or strong forces. Then again, it is strange that linearized gravity is still mathematically identical to the electromagnetic field, yet magnetism is a frame dependent phenomenon, just like gravity, hence why gravimagnetism could hold some essential unifying keys. Perhaps time is both subjective and real, but if it is real, then time is not a mere invention of the mind or by mathematics in general. It seems true to some extent, that since there are no non trivial time operators, that time itself isn't quantizable... But! It's not impossible to do so."

So if you can wrap your head round thus, you'll stop this gravitons nonsense!

Edited by Dubbelosix
Share on other sites

Look, if the universe came from an all matter dominated liquid mesophase, it still has to degenerate into a radiation vapor phase. This is the cold big bang model and I was the first to suggest that if it is indeed true then it probably came itself from a mesophase crystal structure, but this still has nothing to do with gravitons. They are a new class of particles we still don't fully understand, but the idea itself is quite simple, they were the primordial particles that heated up, whether from a degenerate space or from an antimatter-matter collision. Gravity as we understand it, is not quantizable, it is an effect of curvature on spacetime itself, it's not a transmissible force, but an effect of matter and energy in spacetime from the stress energy tensor. Scientists where very giddy in the past about making gravity a real field composed of particles. The fact still remains those models have not taught us anything but the error of their ways.

Edited by Dubbelosix
Share on other sites

And by God, please get the horrible terminology out of your head. Scientists are slowly awaking to the folly of infinities,they simply don't exist, whether the universe is open or not, the universe still has a finite past. The universe would need to expand in an infinite amount of steps to be truly infinite. But it hasn't. That's a fact!

Edited by Dubbelosix
Share on other sites

Yes, the math platform in the model of gravitons; saying it's just a math problem is not insightful enough, it's actually the wrong class of model that goes with it.

Edited by Dubbelosix
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rc3D said:

The problem with standard model is not gravitons, it's the math platform they use.

Just now, Rc3D said:

The granules & gravitational wave propagation are quantized to planck metrics but the varied field strengths of quantum gravity is not. That's where dark matter comes in but I'm not going to get into my patentable theoreticals.

Dubbel is always right because he studies real science listen to Dubbel, Polymath.

Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rc3D said:

Careful Victor, labels, titles, badges of honor and the "vernacularly accepted" can be incomplete/misleading.

Share on other sites

No, you took buzzwords like the Planck scale, while you may have heard gravity gets strong at these regions, and while it is quite possibly true, has nothing to do with gravitons. Gravity just gets strong at these scales because curvature is dominated at the Planck scale. Take a particle whizzing around a common center in absence of a wave function, it has a very large accelerated curvature, so it is effected by gravity in the same sense. This is not a general rule though, because electrons inside of atoms lose sense of acceleration in the presence of its own wave function because if it really was influenced with a real acceleration, it would quickly radiate away all its radiation. The electron, even while it can follow curved paths in spacetime, still will not radiate away all its energy because there is no simpler particle for it to decay into. And yet in certain special media, the electron can be split into three even more fundamental particles, but this is not something associated to the medium of spacetime. If you want, you could loosely say gravity is quantized in the sense of all real matter fields, but this doesn't need any gravitons to unify it since only a single stress energy tensor describes all that due to curvature and acceleration in ordinary space and time. Gravitons are a delusion of archaic unifying assumptions

Share on other sites

The idea though is best articulated in the following way, I quote wiki

"The Planck length is the length at which quantum zero oscillations of the gravitational field completely distort Euclidean geometry. The gravitational field performs zero-point oscillations, and the geometry associated with it also oscillates."

The ground state applies to all matter fields, and there is no empty space. In fact, to get the creation and annihilation of the fields, for the ground state, you must quantize the gravitational potential but this is not anything directly related to gravitons as you think, it's how the action of the fields at the lengths associated to the Planck scale becomes gravitationally significant.

Edited by Dubbelosix
Share on other sites

Even the wiki quote can be misunderstood because it speaks foolishly of quantum oscillations of the gravitational field, and yet this is not the real definition of the ground state of ordinary fields. Again, all (real) fields contribute fluctuations in the ground state, we observe these fields indirectly, it's a matter of experimental fact that they exist at near absolute zero. We cannot speak of the gravitational field like this in any foolish way because there is no observational evidence to date of gravitons. And why should there be? General relativity is a theory of a pseudoforce.  It will come as an interesting daft fact, that Einstein later came to speculate about perturbations as gravitational waves yet it was only much later the field theorists tried to take those perturbations as real particles (gravitons).

Edited by Dubbelosix
Share on other sites

We detected ripples in spacetime, a natural consequence of curvature not gravitons believe it or not! It's a ripple of geometry that is non Euclidean. If you want to understand why gravitational waves exist,  you need to give up on the idea that gravity is a transmissible force field. It's simply not. The mathematicians acted like theorists and butchered the principles of relativity!

Edited by Dubbelosix
Share on other sites

More bluntly, you don't need gravitons to explain a psuedofield, any more than we needed to invent new ones for the Coriolis effect or any of the other (by strict definition) false fields of nature. We don't even have magnetic monopoles, and ask yourself why? It's because magnetism is a frame dependent phenomenon arising from the motion of electrically charged systems.

Edited by Dubbelosix

Join the conversation

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

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.