Gravity of the Situation

heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Dark is just fancy Press talk. They all will say, we don't know shit about any of it.

That is an interesting idea about entropy itself is the driver of accelerated expansion. :o
Click to expand...
Errr... I don't know if Entropy itself is the driver. It is just a part of Nature we observe. The natural tendency of matter is to be reduced to disorder. It is a "state function".



 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Yes of course

But it is most of the energy we can detect that is taken up with driving the "expansion"

Of course, large scale entropy is the result but what is the cause?
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Yes of course

But it is most of the energy we can detect that is taken up with driving the "expansion"

Of course, large scale entropy is the result but what is the cause?
Click to expand...
That is the part which causes contention between "dark" physics and field theories, I believe.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Dr.Pecker said:
Good job doer you have two likes in this thread.
Click to expand...
So, you think hard physics is some sort of popularity contest? That is why you are confused about science.

Science is an UN-popularity Contest. There are those that defend the Current Understanding as ruthless and underhanded, as those that attack it.

But, how would you know? You can't even follow the math.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft.html
Click to expand...
It was kind of a tricky concept of mine. Proof of QFT, I said. The tricky part of this is which part is the chicken and which is the egg. Quantum and Field are mutually exclusive terms in a very fundamental way. They are both math constructs, but are the Field Domains painted Quantum un-certainty or is Quantum reality painted with Fields, yet, Uncertainly?.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128490/what-is-the-source-of-quantum-fields

In the beginning of "Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur," there is the statement:

Every particle and every wave in the Universe is simply an excitation of a quantum field that is defined over all space and time.

To an naive (not gifted) self-studier, this came as quit an eye-opener. Over the course of a non-physics education, one tends to get so used to the existence of atoms, protons, electrons,etc., even subatomic particles, that it is easy to overlook where they came from.

So the above remark is a nice resolution. Then my question is, where do these quantum fields come from.

Further, with a subsequent assertion that, e.g., all protons are perfectly alike, as mentioned on pdf page 9 of Prof. Tong's notes:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/qft.pdf

in that "there is a sea of proton stuff filling the universe,"

Q - if this sea fills the universe, then where do the seas of other particles fit in - and how do they keep things straight amongst themselves?

A - The "fields" are part of a mathematical model that attempts to explain our observations. Saying "where does a field come from" is a bit like saying "where does everything in the Universe come from" or "what happened before the Big Bang", which may seem intuitively sensible to humans, but are not necessarily well-founded questions.
Some "fields" may have emerged shortly after the Big Bang due to symmetry breaking, so it may be possible to unify some of the "fields" to a simpler state with fewer "fields", if that makes sense. Evidence suggests (as well as a scientific bias toward simplicity) that the closer you get to the Big Bang, the simpler the models can be. Unfortunately, this also makes the process of modeling things more complicated in part since we can't make direct observations of what the Universe might have looked like back then to test theory.

-----------------------------
The entire concept of "back then," could be horribly wrong, as I pointed out, in the beginning theme of of this thread.

We do not know the timeline. When we think we have it, we look to prove it and we cannot. We end up with dis-proof. We end up with observing tortured light path thru "dark matter."
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Dr.Pecker said:
Good job doer you have two likes in this thread.
Click to expand...
It is a perfect thread like perfect software. Software always has bugs. And software should be as compact as possible. So, perfect software is one line of code that only has one bug. :)\

A perfect thread at RIU has one like and one troll.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Gravity is illusive.

Funny that the most well observed force, from the very beginning of consciousness is the one completely undefined phenomena in Science. There is no science about gravity, only Tech. We use it. We see it. It explains things but we can't explain gravity. Even with a Higgs Field it is still un-known as to how that makes Attraction. The Higgs explains mass, that is a BIG DEAL. But, why do masses attract in space?

The research in Gravity has gotten down to the Planck limits, In fact, the Planck limits are defined as the boundary between Newtonian and Quantum Physics. It is where Newton's Laws break down and it is why they break down.

So, mainly for @heckler73 here is the math on Quantum Computing. It deal entirely with behaviors of Entanglement and the state forms of Qubits. But, it also touches on a good question. Is not the entire Universe a Quantum Compute Engine?

----------------------
The Planck length is related to Planck energy by the uncertainty principle. At this scale, the concepts of size and distance break down, as quantum indeterminacy becomes virtually absolute. Because the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole is roughly equal to the Compton wavelength at the Planck scale, a photon with sufficient energy to probe this realm would yield no information whatsoever. Any photon energetic enough to precisely measure a Planck-sized object could actually create a particle of that dimension, but it would be massive enough to immediately become a black hole (a.k.a. Planck particle), thus completely distorting that region of space, and swallowing the photon.
-------------------------

I think this may account for the Dark Energy....possibly...somehow. Energy can be shown to be exchanged non-casually at the Planck Scale. It is the only thing we know of that explains Heisenberg Uncertainty. Could this account for the Accelerated Expansion of the Universe we measure? Does it mean the Universe is thinking it through, on its own mission, etc?

Spacetime at the Planck Scale
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0304/0304032.pdf
 
Last edited:
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Gravity is illusive.

Funny that the most well observed force, from the very beginning of consciousness is the one completely undefined phenomena in Science. There is no science about gravity, only Tech. We use it. We see it. It explains things but we can't explain gravity. Even with a Higgs Field it is still un-known as to how that makes Attraction. The Higgs explains mass, that is a BIG DEAL. But, why do masses attract in space?
Click to expand...

Accelerating charges--on their own--will generate fields . But what makes them accelerate? It would require a potential difference...that is the lesson of EM, as far as my comprehension goes. I'm still trying to read the supplemental material for the prelim video I linked.

The research in Gravity has gotten down to the Planck limits, In fact, the Planck limits are defined as the boundary between Newtonian and Quantum Physics. It is where Newton's Laws break down and it is why they break down.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the uncertainty principle?


----------------------
The Planck length is related to Planck energy by the uncertainty principle. At this scale, the concepts of size and distance break down, as quantum indeterminacy becomes virtually absolute. Because the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole is roughly equal to the Compton wavelength at the Planck scale, a photon with sufficient energy to probe this realm would yield no information whatsoever. Any photon energetic enough to precisely measure a Planck-sized object could actually create a particle of that dimension, but it would be massive enough to immediately become a black hole (a.k.a. Planck particle), thus completely distorting that region of space, and swallowing the photon.
-------------------------
Click to expand...
If these principles of "dark" have anything to do with Schwarzschild radii being Compton wavelengths, then it rests on a dubious foundation. I was at a colloquium where the presenter, Gabor Kunstatter, checked something akin to that hypothesis:
After a brief review of black holes and the evidence for their existence, I will describe in more detail the nature of the black hole information loss paradox. I will then list several proposed resolutions. Finally I will offer a different, more mundane solution to the problem based on the fact that the singularity which is thought to lurk at the center of all black holes and lies at the heart of the conundrum cannot be realized in nature. I will use a simple phenomenological model to argue that taming the singularity resolves the conundrum by allowing the information to emerge at the end of the evaporation process.
http://inspirehep.net/search?ln=en&p=find+a+kunstatter&of=hb&action_search=Search

Now, when I saw that part of his presentation, my takeaway was something different re: geometry of black holes (I lean towards the idea they are toroidal due to torques, but WTF do I know :lol: ).
However, he told me what he was trying to demonstrate is that when the critical mass is reached there is a dual-front wave which begins to develop from some radius. These fronts then move outward and inward at the same time, but there is a point where the energy pushes back on the inner wave front and oscillates around the inner radius, so they are concentric spheres. This happens at a distance that is a far cry from a Compton WL...it's been a couple months, and I didn't take notes (I should have...), but there may be more info in one of his 150+ papers at that link above :lol:

The first paper on the list, published Oct 7, is from the presentation I saw. I just gave it a quick skim, and it seems to be talking about the material. Too bad it doesn't have the simulation attached. That was a trip...

I think this may account for the Dark Energy....possibly...somehow. Energy can be shown to be exchanged non-casually at the Planck Scale. It is the only thing we know of that explains Heisenberg Uncertainty. Could this account for the Accelerated Expansion of the Universe we measure? Does it mean the Universe is thinking it through, on its own mission, etc?
Click to expand...

I don't know...I'm still trying to figure out how this Planck particle forms... :confused:
If 2-3 solar masses are needed for a "gravitational" collapse, how are you going to turn something on the order of a proton into a BH? It sounds to me like you're trying to create a singularity where there can't be one.
That paper you link has some discrete assumptions cooked in...and what on Earth (or elsewhere) is "space-time foam"? :lol:

I better step back from the keyboard, for now before...

f97d033e87ca.gif
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
The reason the Planck scale defines the edge of Newtonian Physics is not arbitrary. It is the smallest distance we can measures with our only standard tool, the speed of light in vacuum. It works out to the distance light travels at 10 to the -43 power. of a second.

This is why the calculations of the Big Bang fail at that time mark. Before that, is not conceptual in our science. There was simply no time, before that. Spacetime did not exist, before that.

IAC, Heisenberg Principle and Quantum Compute Engines are real. And the Field Theorist have no explanation.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
The reason the Planck scale defines the edge of Newtonian Physics is not arbitrary. It is the smallest distance we can measures with our only standard tool, the speed of light in vacuum. It works out to the distance light travels at 10 to the -43 power. of a second.

This is why the calculations of the Big Bang fail at that time mark. Before that, is not conceptual in our science. There was simply no time, before that. Spacetime did not exist, before that.

IAC, Heisenberg Principle and Quantum Compute Engines are real. And the Field Theorist have no explanation.
Click to expand...
That's fine and dandy, but it doesn't really explain gravity. And I can't ignore Kunstatter's work. Ultimately, it is a question of discrete vs. continuum.

Neil Turok is another one who has a question about the discrete energy levels in quantum, suggesting one may need to account for complex time (which allows then for a continuum energy in QM, IIRC).
The validity of Quantum Comp has little to do with this matter, as far as I can tell, although I stand to be corrected.

However, my comprehension of that, speaking with people who make it their business to ponder the question, is it comes from the idea of potential wells and position--the dE and dx of QM. Again, there's no apparent connection to gravity.

So, where are you getting your "dark" physics from, exactly? (did ya see what I did there, eh? :D )
I'm trusting you aren't taking my points the wrong way. I am only offering my background thoughts so you can see what barriers are in my mind when it comes to "dark" physics. If you can use your knowledge to bridge my ignorance in the matter, I'd be more enthusiastic.
For example, what is dark energy as you understand it?

 
Last edited:
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
No, Heck, I've never taken our discussions to be any more than that. I don't believe in any of this stuff. It is not worthy of belief, being only Science. :)

We observe. Just like in the 80s when there was Particle Stew as the Understanding. All of that was resolved by more Colliding at higher Energies in the 90s. 40 Particles resolved into 12 or something like that. The Understanding moved forward.

Before Hubble we thought we were in a formless Universe, "in an Island of Stars, all alone," they said. There ARE holes between the star systems of this Galaxy. We could see out. We could see there was nothing out there. But, Hubble said, wait, there is. You just need a bigger telescope. There are a bunch of galaxies and dust clouds. There are quasars and pulsars and black holes. We can see them. We can measure their energies.

OK, now more observation. Type 1A supernovae, blow up, the same way each time. Find those, and measure distance via "standard candle" math. It is the much better way than the Hubble Constant which is accurate only "locally."

So, finally we can tell the slow down of expansion, i.e., the deceleration rate that was assumed. All explosions, slow down. We can tell if there is enough energy to keep expanding, though slowly? Or is the expansion over? Are we soon to lose the red shift? All explosions slow down. Surelt the Big Bang is slowing down, or has stopped.

Ding Ding Ding!!! No. Neither. And neither is it stopped and neither is it just coasting at a velocity.. This accelerating expansion of the universe shows that the galaxies are repulsing each other. REPULSING!!!!! What the Cold Fusion Poopy Pants, is this??? It is Observed.

So, not only is the universe expanding, the rate is accelerating. What vast energy is driving that?

We don't know. So the Press calls that Dark Energy. There is all this extra gravity, called by the Press, Dark Matter. This surely means the Expansion is slowing. BUT NO.

How to explain it? Well, it is in the paper on Planck Time, and the Quantum Computing of Spacetime, perhaps. The one, I showed a few posts back. Read the conclusion. There is non-locality at the fine grain of Planck Space Quantum foam. So, no locality means non-causality as well, at the bottom rung of Spacetime. Locale is necessary for Time. No locale, no Time flow.

The energy is coming from the Past? Or is it from the Future? Or is expansion, just the outcome of these non-causal energy exchanges? In fact, the very idea of Past and Future is quite meaningless here, in a lot of ways.
 
Last edited:
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Good video, BTW. At the end there, the reason Saul Perlmutter won the Nobel Prize is because he is the one that figured out the 1A Super Nova, standard candle. Being just a Physics guy he was laughed out of the Telescope Time to prove this Universe Shattering conjecture. Science is hard. But he finally got the Time on the Scopes and set Astronomy on it Ear.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/07/rational-heroes-saul-perlmutter-astrophysics-universe
Nobel prize-winning astrophysicist Saul Perlmutter never thought "Eureka!" when, in 1997, his observations of exploding stars called supernovae suggested that the expansion of the universe, begun by the big bang, was accelerating. In fact, explains Perlmutter, he thought he and his team must have made a mistake. For a start, they had embarked on the project a decade earlier, expecting to measure the rate at which the universe's expansion was slowing. To find the opposite seemed crazy.

Yet after months of painstaking checking, what they saw simply wouldn't go away. "Finally we came to the conclusion – this is what we have, and we're going to have to publish and present it," says Perlmutter.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
A follow-up...something that was in my watchlist, but I never made time to watch it until now.
Smooth Tension
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
That was fabulous. I learned a lot there. I had favored the non-smooth model, but he settled my hash about that.

Hey, here is the best explanation I have seen for the Quantum Understanding of the Theory of Everything.

First quantize Space, then think in 11 Dimension. :)

 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
That was fabulous. I learned a lot there. I had favored the non-smooth model, but he settled my hash about that.

Hey, here is the best explanation I have seen for the Quantum Understanding of the Theory of Everything.

First quantize Space, then think in 11 Dimension. :)
Click to expand...
That's something which has been in the back of my mind for ~20 years, oddly. It always bugged me, even though I didn't have as developed a grasp of the math back then (not that I'm close to comprehending all the math now, either).
At present, I see it as an attempt to reduce reality into a linear algebra convolution. And I don't see how that is applied or tested, in a practical manner. The LHC attempts to poke around at the energy levels associated with SuSy have not gone well, if I'm not mistaken.

That aside, his TOE has assumptions cooked-in which still meet barriers in my mind, causing its own dark energy to repel the idea from digesting.
However, the flatland analogy is one worth contemplating. How would we perceive "higher dimensions" anyway? It would have to be an interpretation of actions in boundary layers of our perception. And to me, that becomes a matter of fields.

...

For some strange reason, this equation just jumped across at me:



I'm not sure why...
...excuse me for a moment,
I have some reading to do.​
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
It is a perfect thread like perfect software. Software always has bugs. And software should be as compact as possible. So, perfect software is one line of code that only has one bug. :)\

A perfect thread at RIU has one like and one troll.
Click to expand...
There is no gravity; everything just sucks.

Perfection, achieved. Pass the bong!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top