Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: IzzieC on 24/08/2018 13:50:17
-
We've had this question from Paul:
"At the beginning of time, how did nothing become the universe? If nothing is like an empty glass, how did it get full? Nothing is nothing so how can nothing become something. I know that the entire universe is 10 of zillions of years old but it started sometime but nothing is still nothing. Carbon is the core of all beings but protons, neutrons and matter, where did it come from?"
Can you help?
-
We've had this question from Paul:
"At the beginning of time, how did nothing become the universe? If nothing is like an empty glass, how did it get full? Nothing is nothing so how can nothing become something. I know that the entire universe is 10 of zillions of years old but it started sometime but nothing is still nothing. Carbon is the core of all beings but protons, neutrons and matter, where did it come from?"
Can you help?
Nobody knows. However, that said, its quite possible for something to come from nothing. The total energy of a closed system is a constant. If the universe started out with zero energy then that energy could have been split between mass-energy, which is positive, and gravitational energy, which is negative. So the total energy remained constant but matter could have been created out of nothing given some form of mass-energy existed after the big-bang.
-
Nobody knows. However, that said, its quite possible for something to come from nothing. The total energy of a closed system is a constant. If the universe started out with zero energy then that energy could have been split between mass-energy, which is positive, and gravitational energy, which is negative. So the total energy remained constant but matter could have been created out of nothing given some form of mass-energy existed after the big-bang.
I return to TNS after almost 3 wks absence and find something with which I have to take issue.
Nobody knows.
So far, so good.
However, that said, its quite possible for something to come from nothing.
Eureka! This could be the answer to the often asked question.
The total energy of a closed system is a constant.
Wait! Isn’t “the total energy” something?
If the universe started out with zero energy then that energy could have been split…….
OK, I’m not a mathematician, so I'm not going to know how to split “zero”, but I’m willing to try to learn.
….. between mass-energy, which is positive, and gravitational energy, which is negative
Are mass-energy and gravitational energy not something?
. So the total energy remained constant but matter could have been created out of nothing given some form of mass-energy existed after the big-bang.
This is where I need help. To me this says: “matter could have been created out of nothing given that something was there from which it could be created”.
Thanks Pete. I couldn’t have wished for a better re-introduction. ;)
-
Wait! Isn’t “the total energy” something?
No. Energy is not a "thing."
OK, I’m not a mathematician, so I'm not going to know how to split “zero”, but I’m willing to try to learn.
0 = 1 - 1 = 10 - 10 = E - E
Are mass-energy and gravitational energy not something?
I was referring to mass-energy as that matter which is created after the big bang and has mass-energy. But potential energy is not a thing either.
-
No. Energy is not a "thing."
How do you limit the definition of "thing" so as to exclude energy?
-
0 = 1 - 1 = 10 - 10 = E - E
Just a thought: Is zero "something"?
“You can’t lie with math.
But it greatly aids obfuscation.” Sabine Hossenfelder
-
No. Energy is not a "thing."
How do you limit the definition of "thing" so as to exclude energy?
Easy. Just look at the definition of thing and recall what Feynman said about energy
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and we add it all together it gives “28” - always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.
In the context in which we're using the term a "thing" can't be abstract.
-
Nobody knows
Maybe nobody knows for sure and never ill BUT theories abound, the zero energy universe is one such theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe Mass represents one form of energy and gravity/dark energy :) represent the opposite, and cancel out if brought together.
-
Easy. Just look at the definition of thing and recall what Feynman said about energy
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is.
So, it could be a “thing”?
In the context in which we're using the term a "thing" can't be abstract.
I was trying to sort out the context in which you were using “thing”. This brings some clarification, but still leaves, unanswered, the question from earlier: Is zero "something"?
It’s probably not productive to get bogged down in the definition of a word that can have as many shades of meaning as “thing”; but here’s one from the Oxford Dictionary that seems to cover the more ethereal or abstract:
“All that can be described in the specified way”.
Could we agree that energy is, as far as we can tell, not a concrete “thing”; but we can observe its influence on the world around us, so it is “something” in the broadest sense?
I’m really not trying to argue about the definition of “thing”, but it looks like it needed to be cleared out of the way before we could progress to the subjects I need to get my mind around.
-
Mass represents one form of energy and gravity/dark energy represent the opposite, and cancel out if brought together.
The fact that two things cancel out does not necessarily remove either from the equation, that’s something I need to address with Pete.
-
Pete, lets see if we can get onto the same wavelength.
0 = 1 - 1 = 10 - 10 = E – E
Mathematically, I have no problem with this, but to quote Sabine Hossenfelder again:
“I love math, I just don't want it to be confused with physics.”
So how about we take this into the physical world?
10kg of Tremolite Serpentinite (=something) – 10kg of Tremolite Serpentinite (=something) = zero.
I’m sure that is mathematically fine, but the fact that the sum of 10 – 10 = 0 does not “destroy” 20kg of Tremolite Serpentinite in the physical world.
If you think either lump of TS has become nothing, dropping it on your foot should disabuse you of that idea.
-
The total energy of a closed system is a constant. If the universe started out with zero energy then that energy could have been split between mass-energy, which is positive, and gravitational energy, which is negative.
Nobody knows
Maybe nobody knows for sure and never ill BUT theories abound, the zero energy universe is one such theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe Mass represents one form of energy and gravity/dark energy :) represent the opposite, and cancel out if brought together.
Don't you recall what I wrote above, i.e.
The total energy of a closed system is a constant. If the universe started out with zero energy then that energy could have been split between mass-energy, which is positive, and gravitational energy, which is negative.
The person who first made me aware of this is a good friend of mine, the person responsible for the "free lunch" idea and one of the creators of the inflationary model of the universe.
-
If you think either lump of TS has become nothing, dropping it on your foot should disabuse you of that idea.
You have to take the physical meaning of it into account before making such a statement. Physically what does the negative thing represent?
Think of vacuum fluctuations. Two particles are created, one with positive energy and one with negative energy. While they exist the sum of their mass-energy is zero but will hurt if you drop one or both on your foot. Lol! But they'll annihilate each other and disappear from the universe at which time they can't hurt you foot. I 'spose you can think of the universe as a vacuum fluctuation.
-
So how about we take this into the physical world?
10kg of Tremolite Serpentinite (=something) – 10kg of Tremolite Serpentinite (=something) = zero.
I’m sure that is mathematically fine, but the fact that the sum of 10 – 10 = 0 does not “destroy” 20kg of Tremolite Serpentinite in the physical world.
If you think either lump of TS has become nothing, dropping it on your foot should disabuse you of that idea.
How would you "subtract" something from the Universe in the first place? When you say you are subtracting 10 kg of TS from 10 kg of TS, what kind of physical actions are you performing?
-
Don't you recall what I wrote above, i.e.
Yes I do :)
The person who first made me aware of this is a good friend of mine, the person responsible for the "free lunch" idea and one of the creators of the inflationary model of the universe.
That must be Alan Guth then:) . I had not known he was responsible for the inflationary universe idea until you pointed it out earlier.
I guess you agree that IF we define gravity as negative energy and all other forms of energy as positive energy then a zero energy universe is possible. Gravity is still not fully understood at the quantum level, I suspect Verlinde is coming close to explaining it. He thinks that dark energy and gravity are both aspects entanglement. Glancing at the HUP indicates that virtual particles appearing from nothing only momentarily dont violate energy conservation laws, because its just momentary .
You can see where Im going, possibly not. Can energy that does not violate the conservation of energy laws only borrowed be regarded as -ve energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
-
If you think either lump of TS has become nothing, dropping it on your foot should disabuse you of that idea.
Physically what does the negative thing represent?
I was hoping we would progress far enough for you to tell me that.
Two particles are created, one with positive energy and one with negative energy. While they exist the sum of their mass-energy is zero….
Precisely, “the sum of their mass-energy is zero”, but doesn’t each have individual mass-energy?
….. but will hurt if you drop one or both on your foot. Lol!
Pleased to see you can still introduce some humour.
I 'spose you can think of the universe as a vacuum fluctuation.
You can’t be saying that the vacuum is “nothing”, or there would be nothing to fluctuate.
-
How would you "subtract" something from the Universe in the first place?
That’s one of the things I’m trying to find out.
Pete said “…they'll annihilate each other and disappear from the universe”. This puzzles me, but I’m sure Pete will clarify this.
When you say you are subtracting 10 kg of TS from 10 kg of TS, what kind of physical actions are you performing?
I’m not performing any actions; I’m using this as an illustration of the idea that mathematical reality and physical reality are not necessarily the same thing. Sabine Hossenfelder expresses it better than I could.
BTW, Dead Cat, I didn't say that! I don't have any good friends in the scientific world, I frighten them off with persistent questions. :)
-
You can touch a table. It is a thing. If you throw a table that is an action involving energy. The problem comes when discussing the energy inherent in particles. It is not a kinetic energy in the sense of the thrown table. It doesn't require a vector to define it. So you must first define which energy you are considering.
-
Jeffrey, we may be slipping into some serious thread drift here. Much as I would prefer to avoid becoming further bogged down in semantics; we simple country folk like to get our ducks in a row before moving on.
You can touch a table. It is a thing.
Just for clarity; you are not saying that if you can’t touch it, it is not a thing, are you?
If you throw a table that is an action involving energy.
In that scenario, is energy a “thing”?
The problem comes when discussing the energy inherent in particles. It is not a kinetic energy in the sense of the thrown table.
How is it related to the (quantum scale) motions of the particles?
So you must first define which energy you are considering.
Does this imply that whereas one type of energy might be defined as a “thing”, another might not?
-
I like the idea of the zero energy universe--it has a very pleasing symmetry, and allows us to consider the creation of mass without violation of thermodynamics (assuming that mass-energy equivalence holds in these extreme situations).
Let us imagine the spontaneous appearance of a massive particle (with mass m) in the presence of (a distance r away from) an already-existing massive body (with mass M). For the gravitational potential energy to cancel out the mass-energy of the new particle:
m×c2 – 2×G×m×M/r = 0 (we have to count the gravitational term twice because each body exerts on the other, I think...)
it is immediately obvious that the mass m doesn't matter, and it can be divided out, leaving:
c2 – 2×G×M/r = 0
which can be rearranged to (putting all the variable on one side and all the constants on the other):
M/r = c2/(2×G) = 6.733×1026 kg/m
or, more usefully:
r = 2×G×M/c2
which is the definition of the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole! (non-rotating)
The conclusion I draw from this is that if we accept the zero energy universe, we must also accept that our whole universe is inside a black hole (also a fairly popular explanation).
Please note: This is literally armchair physics (as I derived this while relaxing in my chair on a Sunday afternoon). Presumably others have already reached this conclusion, if it is correct... or if it is not correct--I would like to know where I went wrong.
-
The maths goes (largely) over my head, but the zero-energy universe has attractive features. One thing I cannot do is equate it with the idea of a universe from nothing. Such a universe might appear from a situation in which the net mass/energy is zero, but I suspect that the OP was looking for an example of something from “absolutely” nothing.
Let us imagine the spontaneous appearance of a massive particle (with mass m) in the presence of (a distance r away from) an already-existing massive body (with mass M).
As usual, there is something there already.
I empathise with Paul (OP), I have, for some time, been asking the “something from nothing advocates” for a physical example.
-
m×c2 – 2×G×m×M/r = 0 (we have to count the gravitational term twice because each body exerts on the other, I think...)
I disagree. The potential energy is for the system of two particles in this case so you don't need the two.
-
The maths goes (largely) over my head, but the zero-energy universe has attractive features. One thing I cannot do is equate it with the idea of a universe from nothing. Such a universe might appear from a situation in which the net mass/energy is zero, but I suspect that the OP was looking for an example of something from “absolutely” nothing.
And that's what we gave him.
-
m×c2 – 2×G×m×M/r = 0 (we have to count the gravitational term twice because each body exerts on the other, I think...)
I disagree. The potential energy is for the system of two particles in this case so you don't need the two.
Ok, thanks! I went back and forth on that bit, and I guess I convinced myself of the wrong one. However, I think this still leads to the conclusion that this can only happen in a black hole (now within half the Schwarzschild radius of the center).
As usual, there is something there already.
I empathise with Paul (OP), I have, for some time, been asking the “something from nothing advocates” for a physical example.
Ok, well we can say that two particles of mass m appear at a distance r of each other, in which case:
2×m×c2 – G×m2/r = 0
on dividing each side by m, we get:
2×c2 – G×m/r = 0
now rearranged to:
m/r = 2×c2/G = 2.69327062 × 1027 kg / m
Again, meaning that we would have to simultaneously create two black holes, both within the Schwarzschild radius of the other.
This begs the question then (and maybe this is the starting point of the thread, and I'm just a bit slow...) Do black holes just appear out of nowhere, or was there something special about the big bang?
-
We've had this question from Paul:
"At the beginning of time, how did nothing become the universe? If nothing is like an empty glass, how did it get full? Nothing is nothing so how can nothing become something. I know that the entire universe is 10 of zillions of years old but it started sometime but nothing is still nothing. Carbon is the core of all beings but protons, neutrons and matter, where did it come from?"
Can you help?
I think Paul’s question starts out with a major assumption that then shapes the rest of his opening post, and the discussion of it. That assumption is that there was a beginning of time.
How would the question change if Paul didn’t assume that at first there was nothing; no space, no time, no energy, and no potential for any space, time, or energy? The question would then be, where did anything at all come from, not how did nothing become the universe?
The answer to that question could logically be that there was no beginning of time, or of space or energy either; they have always existed … there never was nothing. No beginning of time is necessary in that case.
-
And that's what we gave him.
Absolutely not! Of course, Paul might disagree with that. :) Perhaps he would tell us.
-
-
m×c2 – 2×G×m×M/r = 0 (we have to count the gravitational term twice because each body exerts on the other, I think...)
I disagree. The potential energy is for the system of two particles in this case so you don't need the two.
Ok, thanks! I went back and forth on that bit, and I guess I convinced myself of the wrong one. However, I think this still leads to the conclusion that this can only happen in a black hole (now within half the Schwarzschild radius of the center).
As usual, there is something there already.
I empathise with Paul (OP), I have, for some time, been asking the “something from nothing advocates” for a physical example.
Ok, well we can say that two particles of mass m appear at a distance r of each other, in which case:
2×m×c2 – G×m2/r = 0
on dividing each side by m, we get:
2×c2 – G×m/r = 0
now rearranged to:
m/r = 2×c2/G = 2.69327062 × 1027 kg / m
Again, meaning that we would have to simultaneously create two black holes, both within the Schwarzschild radius of the other.
This begs the question then (and maybe this is the starting point of the thread, and I'm just a bit slow...) Do black holes just appear out of nowhere, or was there something special about the big bang?
Wouldn't it be one quarter of the Schwarzschild radius?
r = G×m/(2×c2)
-
Would this relate to the distance between the creation of particle antiparticle pairs?
-
The Space Time series of videos is a good source for understanding the main theories, including Big Bang Theory and Quantum Field Theory. None of those videos that I have watched claims that there ever was "nothing", or that anything ever came from nothing. This particular video doesn't claim that even the tiniest space containing "nothing" can be produced, or has ever existed. In fact, they maintain that virtual particles need the vacuum to "pop" into existence, and the vacuum state must have energy in order for that to happen, so even vacuum space is not empty, and is therefore "something", not "nothing".
In order for Paul, in the OP, to assume that there was a beginning of time, there would have had to be nothingness out of which the beginning emerged somehow, but even if that nothingness was the vacuum state as defined in the video, the Space Time Video series would only go as far as to say that the vacuum state contains a huge amount of energy, and it is because of that energy that virtual particles can emerge.
-
For what its worth, the concept of what space is, how gravity works, wormholes and entanglement and where matter comes from are all interconnected. Energy can not be created or destroyed, a zero energy universe is highly probable and does not violate the laws of physics.
There are many theories pointing out we exist inside a blackhole connected to a whitehole via a wormhole, heres one, i think podolsky also worked on this. https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/our-universe-resides-in-the-center-of-a-black-hole-this-theory-claims
Does a Blackhole have to exist in the same spacetime dimension as us.
A Blackhole by default has little or no entanglement inside of it according to Verlinde. Before anything existed not even a quantum fluctuation, the default position must be a blackhole, perhaps of the none spinning Schwarzschild type. Could this also by default lead to a big bang because there was no other alternative except to have a big bang. If we exist inside a Blackhole and we are not being squashed could the blackhole exist in another dimension, without us knowing, furthermore could we live on the surface of a whitehole, and could the wormhole connecting the whitehole to the blackhole be manifesting as dark energy/gravity. ???
-
Could we agree that energy is, as far as we can tell, not a concrete “thing”; but we can observe its influence on the world around us, so it is “something” in the broadest sense?
This question was originally addressed to Pete, but I would be very interested to know if others agree, or not, and if not, why not.
-
For what its worth, the concept of what space is, how gravity works, wormholes and entanglement and where matter comes from are all interconnected. Energy can not be created or destroyed, a zero energy universe is highly probable and does not violate the laws of physics.
You and I both like to show up on threads when we can mention science proposals that we favor; ideas that are being discussed out and about but that aren’t generally accepted, lol (no offense intended).
For me it is the concepts of an infinite an eternal universe, aggressive definitions of words like “nothingness” and “universe” and the idea that there was no beginning; the universe has always existed. For you, you like the thinking behind wormholes, massive blackholes and white holes, and the connections between them. For example the list you gave; you mentioned, gravity, wormholes, entanglement, and where matter comes from are all interconnected.
Taking that perspective, I’ll give you gravity, because it is obvious. But to put wormholes in that group might be taking liberties given it is considered quite speculative for a hard science sub-forum. And entanglement is a strange animal that plays on the impression promoted in some interpretations of QM that support the idea of spooky action at a distance. Not all interpretations of QM parlay the fact that particles can be entangled into a bet that there is some faster than light connection or spooky action between entangled particles. I don’t think we have a general consensus on that yet either.
To me it is a welcome concept that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so let’s agree on that. Zero energy, on the other hand, does not appear to be as highly probable to me as it does to you. The implications of it would have far reaching consequences as to the types of theoretical models of the universe that could be derived from it, but it isn’t a consensus yet.
I’m just pointing these cautions out, and playing the Devil’s advocate because not all the members and guests that read this sub-forum are equally informed about the broad range of theoretical physics, and probably some are still in the process of learning generally accepted science. In our defense, I do think it is good that there are discussions of some of the less mainstream existing theories mixed in along with the consensus ideas, but I also think there should be disclaimers like this. Hopefully this post is an acceptable way to present a cautionary statement, without causing concern that we are getting too far afield.
-
Could we agree that energy is, as far as we can tell, not a concrete “thing”; but we can observe its influence on the world around us, so it is “something” in the broadest sense?
This question was originally addressed to Pete, but I would be very interested to know if others agree, or not, and if not, why not.
Maybe my taking you up on your inquiry is presumptuous, but I am just seeking some clarification before I disagree, lol. Are you taking the perspective that there is no evidence that the definition of energy includes anything more than the ability to do work. Or are you asking if anyone thinks it can be extended to include some form of energy as a concrete thing, like a commodity that fills the universe, or something that can have a physical presence in and of itself?
-
The question is as it stands, there is no hidden agenda.
It could be broken down to ask if people agree that:
1. energy is, as far as we can tell, not a concrete “thing”.
2. ….we can observe its influence on the world around us, so it is “something” in the broadest sense.
Obfuscation is always an option, but it is not invited. :)
-
The energy story, to me, has two levels. One is the macro level of particles and objects which are composed of sub-atomic particles. Everything we call matter is at the macro level and is composed of macro particles that contain energy. Macro level particles can also display different forms of energy like kinetic, thermal, and electromagnetic energy that has to do with their content, acceleration, and relative motion.
The energy that they “contain” is quantum level wave energy. Everything that we can see and touch at the macro level is composed wave energy in quantum increments. Thus macro level particles and objects are quantized, they contain wave energy in quantum increments, and they have a net vibration based on the frequencies of the various particles they contain.
When we take both levels together, we have quantized particles and objects that occupy space. Space therefore obviously contains those macro level particles and objects, and the space surrounding those macro level objects is filled with wave energy that traverses space until it is absorbed by macro level objects.
Macro level objects not only absorb wave energy in quantum increments based on their quantized content which governs the frequency of inflowing wave energy that they can absorb, but macro level objects also emit gravitational wave energy in quantum increments.
Particles and objects vibrate based on the frequencies of the sub-atomic particles they contain, and the wave energy in space oscillates based on the frequencies of the particles in the macro objects that emitted the waves into space. Space therefore contains a huge amount of energy that oscillates (displays peaks and valleys of local energy density) as the traversing waves intersect in open space.
-
1. energy is, as far as we can tell, not a concrete “thing”.
+ve energy is a measurable thing, defining what -ve energy is debateable. Dark energy and gravity may fit the Bill :)
2. ….we can observe its influence on the world around us, so it is “something” in the broadest sense.
Yes both +ve energy and -ve energy(if gravity and dark energy are regarded as -ve energy) are all observable.
Obfuscation is always an option, but it is not invited.
Before ?????????? the Big Bang, there was what was called the singularity, an infinitely hot??????????, immeasurably dense point containing all the matter in the universe?????????. This exploded and spread out in all directions, creating the expanding cosmos we see today.
Superposing:- If we exist inside a form of blackhole(existing in another dimension) where space time is undefined or does not exist, connected to a whitehole(spacetime) via a wormhole which is expanding inside the said blackhole(other dimension). We might naturally big bang into existence in a zero energy universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_cosmology
-
Macro level objects not only absorb wave energy in quantum increments based on their quantized content which governs the frequency of inflowing wave energy that they can absorb, but macro level objects also emit gravitational wave energy in quantum increments.
I would disagree with you here on various levels, but keeping it simple for a particle to radiate gravitational energy it would be losing energy and eventually disappear. Particles can not radiate or absorb gravitational energy, without gaining or losing mass/energy. It goes against the laws of physics and the conservation of energy. Verlindes theories suggest the entanglement of space is absorbed around mass/energy, reducing the entropy of space, which again is a bit of a violation to reduce entropy, but no one seems to have jumped on his ideas and said he cant reduce the entropy around mass/energy and his ideas seem close to gaining acceptance, and they do support the MOND curvefit with actual theoretical physics.
How would anyone define negative and positive energies for a zero energy universe. Matter and antimatter do not cancel out, they produce radiation when they come into contact. When space meets mass it appears to curve, possibly as a result of the reduction of entanglement entropy, similar to a black hole, which might be connected to the rest of space via a wormhole :) ??
-
I would disagree with you here on various levels, but keeping it simple for a particle to radiate gravitational energy it would be losing energy and eventually disappear.
Particles can not radiate or absorb gravitational energy, without gaining or losing mass/energy. It goes against the laws of physics and the conservation of energy. Verlindes theories suggest the entanglement of space is absorbed around mass/energy, reducing the entropy of space, which again is a bit of a violation to reduce entropy, but no one seems to have jumped on his ideas and said he cant reduce the entropy around mass/energy and his ideas seem close to gaining acceptance, and they do support the MOND curvefit with actual theoretical physics.
It is true that a radiating particle would eventually disappear, if it was only radiating, but the mechanics of the maintenance of the presence of a sub-atomic particle includes both gravitational radiation and absorption. A particle at rest, for example, has a certain amount of contained energy, and that amount is maintained by the wave energy of the particle being exchanged in equal amounts to and from surrounding space. Equal amounts of outflowing and inflowing gravitational wave energy are required to maintain the presence of the particle at rest.
This discussion is quite alternative to consensus views, so if the moderators feel inclined, they can delete any offending posts, in the interest if letting the permissible portion of the discussion remain here in this sub-forum.
-
Equal amounts of outflowing and inflowing gravitational wave energy are required to maintain the presence of the particle at rest.
Are you redefining the graviton, a spin 2 boson, never detected before or a virtual particle undetectable, to have additional characteristics never theorized before, that I am aware of. Or maybe are you thinking entangled virtual particles are in some way decohered by matter. A decreasing entropy around a particle will cause an attractive force, as outlined by verlinde.
My opinion which is not mainstream, but has support is the graviton and dark matter do not exist. Gravity is an emergent force and has nothing to do with gravitons or dark matter.
Entanglement, wormholes in space time, ER = EPR, all point to more than 4 dimensions of space time, allowing instantaneous information transfer across universes(theoretically :) ). https://www.space.com/20881-wormholes.html
I wonder what would be the expansion rate of space time if it was initiated by a whitehole originating from a blackhole via a wormhole. Would it be limited by the hubble constant.
(A question keeps coming into my head, could space time exist inside a wormhole, ive googled this and found nothing )
-
Are you redefining the graviton, a spin 2 boson, never detected before or a virtual particle undetectable, to have additional characteristics never theorized before, that I am aware of.
You are correct. The graviton is an as yet undiscovered particle in the standard model of particle physics. Not only has it not been detected, hypothetically it also would be required to work with a (an also not yet established) quantum solution to gravity, as would all of the fundamental particles of the standard particle model.
But in their descriptions, those fundamental particles and force carriers are not defined in enough detail to allow them to be particles and forces that are structured to work at the quantum level. They are relegated to “point particles” and “force carriers” in the standard model, but at the quantum level they would theoretically contain multiple quanta in very high numbers; quantum increments of gravitational wave energy.
In QFT they are described as excitations in the quantum field. However, both of those descriptions, the standard model and the quantum mechanics model, which researchers are at work trying to combine, would suggest improvements from which quantum level actions can be derived, and those actions would then help describe the mechanics being sought at the quantum level.
The hypothesized mechanics at that quantum level include the inflowing and out flowing of gravitational wave energy which I posted about in my last post; those flows of wave energy are the two components of the particles that form, are maintained, and whose motion is governed by quantum gravity. In the quantum solution, those flows of wave energy perform the role that the gravitons are expected to fill, but they have not yet been sufficiently described to explain how they would fill that role.
Therefore you are right again when you characterize my post as a redefining of the graviton. I’m talking about how quantum gravity would work, hypothetically, to establish and maintain the presence of particles.
-
1. energy is, as far as we can tell, not a concrete “thing”.
+ve energy is a measurable thing,
Just because something is measurable does not make it a concrete thing.
There are many properties that are measurable, energy, mass, density, specific heat, refractive index, but they are not concrete things, they are properties of concrete things.
If you start trying to view energy as a thing you fall into the trap of thinking ‘pure energy’ exists. False doctrine.
I’m just pointing these cautions out, and playing the Devil’s advocate because not all the members and guests that read this sub-forum are equally informed about the broad range of theoretical physics, and probably some are still in the process of learning generally accepted science. In our defense, I do think it is good that there are discussions of some of the less mainstream existing theories mixed in along with the consensus ideas, but I also think there should be disclaimers like this. Hopefully this post is an acceptable way to present a cautionary statement, without causing concern that we are getting too far afield.
This is a timely warning, because this thread is starting to get to the point where it contains too many assertions which could be interpreted as fact by those less well informed.
Can I offer a reminder that personal ‘hot topics’ should be placed here with caution.
Policing a thread and separating out each post is hard work. If you make hard work for the moderators you are likely to have the thread moved wholesale, frozen, or individuals restricted to posting only in new theories.
More importantly you lose the valuable input of folks like @PmbPhy because they ignore threads where posters consistently ignore or misunderstand their explanations.
-
More importantly you lose the valuable input of folks like @PmbPhy because they ignore threads where posters consistently ignore or misunderstand their explanations.
I agree. I explain something once and if someone has a question on what I said I'll respond. If there is valid criticisms such as Janus posted recently I'll respond. But If I'm ignored I won't heard from me again on that point.
-
Colin is correct. I must admit that lately I have only had time to skim topics. This is the type of thread that can easily veer into new theories territory. As stated it is time consuming to untangle. Just be aware that there are constraints on what can be posted in the mainstream sections.
-
Macro level objects not only absorb wave energy in quantum increments based on their quantized content which governs the frequency of inflowing wave energy that they can absorb, but macro level objects also emit gravitational wave energy in quantum increments.
I would disagree with you here on various levels, but keeping it simple for a particle to radiate gravitational energy it would be losing energy and eventually disappear. Particles can not radiate or absorb gravitational energy, without gaining or losing mass/energy. It goes against the laws of physics and the conservation of energy. Verlindes theories suggest the entanglement of space is absorbed around mass/energy, reducing the entropy of space, which again is a bit of a violation to reduce entropy, but no one seems to have jumped on his ideas and said he cant reduce the entropy around mass/energy and his ideas seem close to gaining acceptance, and they do support the MOND curvefit with actual theoretical physics.
How would anyone define negative and positive energies for a zero energy universe. Matter and antimatter do not cancel out, they produce radiation when they come into contact. When space meets mass it appears to curve, possibly as a result of the reduction of entanglement entropy, similar to a black hole, which might be connected to the rest of space via a wormhole :) ??
What about electromagnetic radiation? The particles should disappear in this case too if your idea had any merit.
Accelerating objects radiate.
-
Accelerating objects radiate.
Only charged particles radiate, unless you're talking about gravitational waves?
Place a charged particle on the floor so that its at rest. Now choose a frame in free fall. In that frame the charge is accelerating so it will radiate. But no radiation will be detected in the rest frame of the charge. Its relative. :)
-
Only charged particles radiate, unless you're talking about gravitational waves?
Place a charged particle on the floor so that its at rest. Now choose a frame in free fall. In that frame the charge is accelerating so it will radiate. But no radiation will be detected in the rest frame of the charge. Its relative.
The radiation would have to be detected by another charge (or conducting material?) ?
-
8)
-
Depends :)
If there was 'energy' and we accept that this is a 'thing' by itself, then you can have a 'symmetry break' of some sort where it 'splits' into different values 'doing work' on 'itself', creating a 'universe', possibly?
If there was nothing at all? Well, at least that leaves us a real 'origin' of whatever came to be to be according to us, using 'time' to define it.
The first one doesn't say if there ever could be a 'origin' actually as it implies that there always 'was energy' existing. It also seem to demand more 'dimensions', unknown to us.
The second one either demands what we would call magic, or a new way of looking at it.