0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: dead cat on 31/08/2018 14:45:27 Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 31/08/2018 13:27:43 I have given my thoughts on related topics like the meaning of nothingness interesting!!!People don't all agree on this definition so let me know how you would modify it.Nothingness; No space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time or energy
time and gravity have both been shown to be emergent dependent on entanglement . space time curvature is a consequence of entanglement.
If you follow indeterminacy, then quantisation of time or space is not applicable. At the Planck scale there would be no way to determine if these measurements were discrete or continuous.
Nevermind Zeno. In which case they may as well be considered continuous. This is a good thing for quantum mechanics. This is a different situation to quantum action. Where the Planck constant defines the quanta.
I think you are being cautious in how you worded your post, not to take a position on if you think the definition is aggressive enough to make the idea of something from nothing an impossibility.
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 07/09/2018 13:51:56 I think you are being cautious in how you worded your post, not to take a position on if you think the definition [of nothingness] is aggressive enough to make the idea of something from nothing an impossibility. every point in the vacuum of space time is full of entanglement (quantum fluctutions). there is no vacuum in space time except perhaps inside a blackhole where entanglement is reduced to a minimum and time slows, and space contracts, speculating perhaps to zero or exits via a singularity and a wormhole ER bridge to a whitehole etc yada yada …
I think you are being cautious in how you worded your post, not to take a position on if you think the definition [of nothingness] is aggressive enough to make the idea of something from nothing an impossibility.
The basic Layman approach to LQG is that it seaks to unify quantum mechanics with einsteins relativity and the OTHER 3 funamental forces. ie it attempts to formulate an approach to gravity in exactly the same way as EFE (EFE predict dark matter exists). Other approaches such as MOND and various other emergent approaches to gravity do not predict dark matter exists and in fact do not agree with fully EFE's . According to Einstein, gravity is not a force – it is a property of space-time itself. Loop quantum gravity is an attempt to develop a quantum theory of gravity based directly on Einstein's geometric formulation, which according to some of the newer theories may not be completly correct.
I will continue to watch your thread to see if any entangled ideas emerge . If both time and space are emergent based on entanglement, and LQG doesnt include entanglement and and
Why do I get the idea that you are not going to commit yourself on the definition of “nothingness” that I posted? Do you agree that if we define nothingness as no space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time, or energy, then it would be impossible for anything to emerge from nothingness. The point I am making is that there was an apparent event we refer to as the big bang, but given the definition, it could not have come from or “emerged” from nothingness; it must have had preconditions that resulted in the big bang event. Do you agree or would you revise the definition of nothingness?
I know what you mean. We have to go a step at a time, and there is plenty of time for laymen to try to understand what they are saying about quantum gravity. In the meantime, looking at and discussing the possibilities that come up as we read the professional level papers is a way of passing the time until the professionals reach their consensus. In general, those discussions will have to be within the NS guidelines, which are understandably more strict in the main science sub-forums.
I stated earlier I find the subject interesting, I did not state I had answers but have already pointed out both time and space are likely emergent and are dependent on entanglement of space time. The concept of ZERO energy depends on your reference point, what is zero energy Can all forms of known energy except space time be regarded as positive energy, could the development of space time be regarded as negative energy. This line of thought flows over to a zero energy universe theory. This theory as I am sure you are aware assumes the total energy of the universe is still zero, and has not deviated from this. The expansion of space time due to the cosmological constant/dark energy (and the curvature/contraction of space time due to gravity) may not be as a result of a big bang but may in actual fact be as a result of how space time and the universe develops in our reference frame.
I agree its a good way of killing time but just because a bunch of paid persons decide via a majority imaginary teapots or none existent dark matter exists and then put forward obfuscated arguments to explain their beliefs doesn’t mean we have to believe them, especially when better or more logical ideas explain the observed universe better.
Serious discussions on new or developing theories are often done on closed forums, filtering out the chaff from the wheat on open forums is not easy, I tend to apply occams razor often cutting myself in the process If it doesn’t involve entanglement and an appreciation of how space time develops then it doesn’t cut the mustard for me.
You are bold and settled on your view, and that is great.
We don’t have to agree on definitions of nothingness or “somethingness” , or even on entanglement or emergence to agree or be realistic about the direction of science.
My views change regularly, but my current interests flip between Verlindes theories and the holographic universe theories, they are closely linked but different. I joined this forum to discuss them. Mainstream thought is dark matter exists and space time is 4 dimensions, opportunities to get people to discuss more dimensions or different types of space is limited. Entanglement, and quantum tunneling are normally only discussed around particles, Verlindes theories include space time entanglement not just particle entanglement. Space time as you are aware looking at the HUP is full of entangled virtual particles pairs which come into and out of existence continuously. I have posted lots of links on this subject but do not wish to hijack your thread, so will continue to watch and learn.
By the way what version of quantum gravity are you wanting to discuss, can you post a paper on exactly what you want to investigate it for perusal. Quantum gravity is a general term and means a lot to different people.
I think generally all theories are trying to model a space time that is expanding in open space, and contracting around masses/energy. ie the earth sucks Realistically it is impossible to model the entire universe in every detail, so generalisations are required. EFE do not attempt to model anything at the quantum level and assume space time is smooth, quantum effects are ignored. At the quantum level space time is anything but smooth, but when zooming out it becomes smooth. http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/03/is-verlindes-emergent-gravity.htmlIn summary, Verlinde’s emergent gravity has withstood the first-line bullshit test. Yes, it’s compatible with general relativity.
I think we maybe both 50% right and wrong on the definitions of nothingness and time. Is it possible that points in space time where neither space or time or energy existed, are continually coming into existence all the time. At the quantum level a mini bang and the beginning of time and space is continually happening as dark energy expands time and space. Zooming out we just view this as space time, ie from our perspective time and space is continually coming into existence adding to the whole of what we perceive giving us an assumed t = 0 at some perhaps not believable big bang. Energy can not be created or destroyed, however space time obviously is. If gravity and dark energy are both viewed as fluctuations in space time and are considered negative energy. In a zero energy universe some form of positive energy must also be coming into existence to offset the new -ve energy, via possibly converting space time into matter. Could Hawking radiation on the edge of a black hole be converting space time into +ve energy by absorbing entangled space time. I know hawking radiation is supposed to allow the gradual evaporation of a black holes mass (BUT Big Bangs and super novaes are beyond the scope of your thread)
The research is in several directions, and there is no consensus yet as to what path will be productive. As to my selected version, I noted that String theory has met with objections, as has Loop Quantum Gravity. My current reading is about LQG and its vehicle, Loop Quantum Cosmology, though I don’t predict where the ultimate solution will come from.
So the “version of QG” that I am capable of discussing is one that starts from the bottom up and is restricted to the 3 dimension of space and one of time
We will be pondering those things for a long time, but are you with me in regard to the fact that what they are saying about quantum gravity takes the discussion to what is physically going on at the quantum level, from the bottom up?
Have you seen this video?//www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJi3_znm7ZEHacking Reality, from Quantum Gravity Research youtube channelIf you can, watch it all the way, and let me know if you get through it.Here is the E8 graphic to meditate on, lol.https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_19_09_18_1_42_48.jpegHere is a link to E8 theory, just to view:https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070320003337AAUcOV1E8 equationIt has been debunked so here is a link to the debunking:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100326132341.htmNo simple theory of everything inside E8
Its any ones guess, String theory has given rise to many insights in physics but no reliable predictions, such as the holographic universe and Verlindes entropic emergent gravity. My attraction to these two theories are they do not need dark matter or the graviton, are just about understandable, and include entanglement with the possibility of an additional dimension via wormholes in space time. Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 19/09/2018 14:24:30So the “version of QG” that I am capable of discussing is one that starts from the bottom up and is restricted to the 3 dimension of space and one of timeYou may miss something with tunnel vision, but agreed the best way is from the bottom up. Big bang theory is from the top down is it not and is not completely correct according to the expanding universe theory, do you wish to bring a version of BB into the discussion.
Yes, [to a layman discussion of QG starting from the bottom up].…