Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: pensador on 21/03/2019 12:45:34
-
Would any body like to discuss/comment on the following perhaps none standard model physics.
Space time might be emergent The utube is a bit pop science and dumbed down, but it is amusing. The following link is by Sean Carroll and puts some meat on the subject of emergent space time.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/07/18/space-emerging-from-quantum-mechanics/
It seemed reasonable to me, that if Hawking radiation would create particles near black hole then the inflationary stage of the universe might sperate virtual particles in a similar way. After eventually googling the correct things I found some interesting links on Particle creation https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.05523.pdf
Particle creation during inflationary stage of the universe https://counterbalance.org/cq-fab/abigb-frame.html?client=ctns2
"An alternative way of looking at the ripples is also instructive. High-energy physics tells us that vacua, including that of inflation, are busy places. According to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, “virtual” pairs of photons and matter-anti-matter particles are spontaneously created out of nothing and annihilating one another even in so-called “empty” space. This microscopic seething of the vacuum normally goes unnoticed because the fluctuations are short-lived: pairs appear and disappear quickly and on average have no measurable effect. Circumstances are essentially altered in inflation, however; now pairs are torn apart by the rapid expansion of space and, once separated, cannot find one another to annihilate. They therefore must become “real,” frozen into the fabric of the Universe for all time. Their associated energy fluctuations are the tiny ripples - seized by inflation and blown up to what will ultimately become, in our day, galaxies and superclusters. "
Preceding all the above I stumbled across Eric Verlindes emergent gravity theory.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269
Does a mechanism for particle creation during inflation and the emergence of space time and gravity now give us a theoory of everything? What would it take for all of this to become standard model physics?
Edit I forgot to include Penroses Conformal Cyclic Universe on the original post, so I will add it for comments also. Its a theory that has been around for a while, a bit like Penrose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology
-
I’m familiar with quite a bit of this, but I’ll check out the links and get back to you
-
I found this link on Forbes that discusses some of the things missing in Eric Verlindes ideas.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/10/04/are-space-time-and-gravity-all-just-illusions/#52476a0c41cf
"Sound waves emerge from molecular interactions; atoms emerge from quarks, gluons and electrons and the strong and electromagnetic interactions; planetary systems emerge from gravitation in General Relativity. But in the idea of entropic gravity — as well as some other scenarios (like qbits) — gravitation or even space and time themselves might emerge from other entities in a similar fashion. There are well-known, close relationships between the equations that govern thermodynamics and the ones that govern gravitation. It's known that the laws of thermodynamics emerge from the more fundamental field of statistical mechanics, but is there something out there more fundamental from which gravity emerges? That's the idea of entropic gravity."
"
His model allows gravitational mass to emerge, but there is no mention of inertial mass, or why those two are the same. (This is Einstein's equivalence principle.)
Many of the intricate assumptions that Verlinde makes can only get the numbers to work out for our Universe if they apply the Hubble expansion rate as it is today, despite the fact that the Universe's expansion rate has changed dramatically over its history.
The model assumes that dark energy was always the dominant form of energy in the Universe in order to make this framework valid, but the truth is that for billions of years, dark energy was negligible."
Entropic Gravity is a WIP work in progess, but still very interesting.
-
Emergent Space time apparently has some interesting results, in that multiverses predicted from string theory can not exist. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274402971_Emergent_Spacetime_Reality_or_Illusion
For me that would add credibility to emergent space time, as I do not buy the multiverse concept. Further more I would suggest that it gives weight to Penroses Aeons and conformal cyclic universe, which he is still banging away on regardless off the critics.
-
ref particle creation during the inflationary stage of the universe, assuming inflation did happen it is like the article quoted in the OP says above, its Virtual particles torn apart by inflation rather like virtual particles torn apart by BH's and Hawking radiation.
In addition to this would any one care to comment on this little observation? Many of the particles created would have unstable masses not unlike MUONS which rapidly decay to electrons and radiation, unless in free fall when they take a bit longer. Virtual Particles becoming real due to inflation would have random masses and likely be unstable like Muons would lose energy in the form of radiation, resulting in a hot big bang, from a cold inflating space.
-
Let’s start simple with things we can agree.
It seems apparent that the interaction of protons, neutrons and electrons at a quantum level, and governed by quantum rules, results in what we see as chemistry in the large scale. So, I assume we can say chemistry is emergent from quantum mechanics. Similarly volume, mass, density, colour, stiffness etc all emerge from the quantum world - a ‘deeper reality’.
It would therefore seem reasonable that gravity might also emerge. Does spacetime emerge? Or is that just the playing field?
The real problem with many theories is that the reality they seem to produce is more weird than QM:
.... I do not buy the multiverse concept.
But is that reality just a description in the same way that quarks have ‘colour’. A lot of people get hung up on duality of light and get really confused without realising it is only a description of different properties.
We often describe the electron by its wave function. But let’s say we toss a coin 50 times, we can get a probability distribution that shows how the behaviour of the coin emerges from those ‘quantum’ events, but is it a true description of the coin?
I think this is why people are taking the “it’s only information“ stance, eg holographic doesn’t mean we are projections, only that we can model it that way.
So I think it is possible that one of these theories might produce a useful model, but it would be foolish to try and think that gives us a true view of reality - whatever that is.
What do you think?
-
It would therefore seem reasonable that gravity might also emerge.
Unless it is actually fundamental, like the electrostatic charge of electrons etc from which chemistry and thus stiffness ad colour emerge.
-
That makes me wonder whether charge might also emerge!
-
It would therefore seem reasonable that gravity might also emerge. Does spacetime emerge? Or is that just the playing field?
Inflation fits the data best, preceding hot big bang. I will take it that it is likely inflation took place. If Hawking radiation (which is likely none provable) can convert virtual particles due to a BH into real particles, then like the article above says, inflation can seperate virtual particles having the effect of creating real particles.
-
I think this is why people are taking the “it’s only information“ stance, eg holographic doesn’t mean we are projections, only that we can model it that way.So I think it is possible that one of these theories might produce a useful model, but it would be foolish to try and think that gives us a true view of reality - whatever that is.What do you think?
I tend to agree that a mathematical model does not necessarily give an accurate picture of what is going on, however the models created are only as good as the data going in. With more complete pictures and more accurate data, the models come closer to reality. The Holographic principle arises from the ER=EPR conjecture. All things MAY be entangled to a certain extent including space time, which MIGHT emerge from what space is.
Various String theories claiming different numbers of dimensions, might not actually represent reality but do contain extra dimensions. The Holographic principle arising from string theory is about the simplest thing to visualize.
-
It would therefore seem reasonable that gravity might also emerge.
Unless it is actually fundamental, like the electrostatic charge of electrons etc from which chemistry and thus stiffness ad colour emerge.
This might be said in jest, but there is many a true word said in jest. You are most likely correct if you go far enough back to the inflationary stage of the universe. Everything emerged from what space is, particles with different stable properties came into existence from likely unstable virtual particles that became real.
The underlying picture is matter and energy came from somewhere. If we start with an empty space with 0 gravity and the HUP , inflating faster than light possibly due the HUP and virtual particles. A hot Big Bang happened, creating the universe we have.
They are interesting theories
-
Would any body like to discuss/comment on the following perhaps none standard model physics.Space time might be emergent
It took me 1 minute and 27.s before I turned off the video , that was enough for me , one line of garbage means the rest is garbage .
-
I posted the pop science video links for those who cant be bothered to read the technical papers, they are generally dumbed down. I posted the technical papers for those that learn by reading and are more interested. They take time to read and find faults with.
The emergent theories are relatively new, and still under development, they are not every ones cup of tea. They are however plausible theories developed by actual theoretical physicists which carry a bit more weight than some of the other theories put forward by none physicists on this forum. ;)
-
I posted the pop science video links for those who cant be bothered to read the technical papers, they are generally dumbed down. I posted the technical papers for those that learn by reading and are more interested. They take time to read and find faults with.
The emergent theories are relatively new, and still under development, they are not every ones cup of tea. They are however plausible theories developed by actual theoretical physicists which carry a bit more weight than some of the other theories put forward by none physicists on this forum. ;)
When a theory is opened in discussion , even with a pop science video , explaining that space-time and matter are not the fundamentals of reality , I don't need to know the rest to know it's going to be a garbage theory .
When the event horizon is the boundary line , physical information ends there and the blank space begins .
Space-time is the container of information so space-time is a fundamental and anyone who says it isn't is full of beans .
-
I guess when viewing posts on science forums like this, we all need to bear in mind that cranks might be posting, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person) ) . These Cranks might actually score very highly on Baez's crackpot index http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html and they might actually think people are going to believe them.
The ideas presented on this thread are by credible physicists with qualifications ie they went to school and learned physics, before presenting new theories, unlike some cranks on the forum :o
-
I guess when viewing posts on science forums like this, we all need to bear in mind that cranks might be posting, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person) . These Cranks might actually score very highly on Baez's crackpot index http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html and they might actually think people are going to believe them.
The ideas presented on this thread are by credible physicists with qualifications ie they went to school and learned physics, before presenting new theories, unlike some cranks on the forum :o
Learning something , rinse and repeat , doesn't mean they understand physics .
-
I guess when viewing posts on science forums like this, we all need to bear in mind that cranks might be posting, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person) . These Cranks might actually score very highly on Baez's crackpot index http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html and they might actually think people are going to believe them.
The ideas presented on this thread are by credible physicists with qualifications ie they went to school and learned physics, before presenting new theories, unlike some cranks on the forum :o
Learning something , rinse and repeat , doesn't mean they understand physics .
Here is the relevant part from the wiki link on cranks ""Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held that it is considered ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making any rational debate a futile task and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference. "
-
Incidentally...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3124892/Toe-ing-party-line-Spanish-mayor-s-election-victory-overshadowed-bizarre-pictures-showing-pinkies-sticking-uncomfortable-looking-shoes.html
-
Incidentally...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3124892/Toe-ing-party-line-Spanish-mayor-s-election-victory-overshadowed-bizarre-pictures-showing-pinkies-sticking-uncomfortable-looking-shoes.html
:) I must be getting slow, I almost read the entire article before I got the connection between Pinkies and emergent TOES. ;D
-
Inflation fits the data best, preceding hot big bang. I will take it that it is likely inflation took place. If Hawking radiation (which is likely none provable) can convert virtual particles due to a BH into real particles, then like the article above says, inflation can seperate virtual particles having the effect of creating real particles.
Reasonable assumptions, certainly the high energies needed to create particles would be available.
I’ve seen results of experiments to confirm virtual particles can become permanent, so probably no reason to rely on Hawking radiation.
It took me 1 minute and 27.s before I turned off the video , that was enough for me , one line of garbage means the rest is garbage .
So, every good reason not to post in this thread.
Take care not to troll, I might not be in a forgiving mood when you do :)
-
I’ve seen results of experiments to confirm virtual particles can become permanent, so probably no reason to rely on Hawking radiation.
Do you happen to have a reference for the experiments showing virtual particles becoming real in the lab. I have references to the Dynamic Casimir effect converting virtual particles, but went with Hawking radiation, to keep things simple (not meaning Hawking radiation is simple but the picture is :) .
-
Maybe Emergent gravity has flaws, or maybe not https://phys.org/news/2018-08-flaw-emergent-gravity.html
-
I’ve seen results of experiments to confirm virtual particles can become permanent, so probably no reason to rely on Hawking radiation.
Do you happen to have a reference for the experiments showing virtual particles becoming real in the lab. I have references to the Dynamic Casimir effect converting virtual particles, but went with Hawking radiation, to keep things simple (not meaning Hawking radiation is simple but the picture is :) .
Colin seeing is believing. Do you have a link to verifiable experimental evidence that virtual particles have been converted in a lab to real particles out of the vacuum, or is it safer to stick with the Hawking concept put forward in the OP during the inflationary phase.
-
Colin seeing is believing. Do you have a link to verifiable experimental evidence that virtual particles have been converted in a lab to real particles out of the vacuum,
Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production#Photon_to_electron_and_positron
-
Colin seeing is believing. Do you have a link to verifiable experimental evidence that virtual particles have been converted in a lab to real particles out of the vacuum,
Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production#Photon_to_electron_and_positron
Thanks for the response, but No ! That is not pair production from "Virtual Particles"or an empty vacuum of space, it requires bosons, which are not virtual particles, with more energy than the rest mass energies of the particles being created.
"Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples include creating an electron and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton. Pair production often refers specifically to a photon creating an electron-positron pair near a nucleus. For pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the interaction must be above a threshold of at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles, and the situation must conserve both energy and momentum.[1] However, all other conserved quantum numbers (angular momentum, electric charge, lepton number) of the produced particles must sum to zero – thus the created particles shall have opposite values of each other. For instance, if one particle has electric charge of +1 the other must have electric charge of −1, or if one particle has strangeness of +1 then another one must have strangeness of −1. "
During the inflationary stage of the universe "prior" to the hot big bang. Virtual Particles, similar to Hawking Radiation, were likely separated, via the inflation of space ie energy from nothing except the HUP. In the beginning there was the HUP 8) I dont think it was light, I think the old testament is wrong, and not a basis for people to stop asking questions ;)
I have come across no experimental evidence of virtual particles becoming real, Colin2B suggested he had seen experimental evidence of this. Pair production using pre existing bosons is not proof of Pair production from empty space.
I don't see any way in which the inflationary stage of the universe could be reproduced unless Penroses CCC theory is correct, in which case in a few 10^100 years time, another Hot Big bang might happen resulting in another Aeon.
-
A bit more on the inflation stage of the universe by Prof Matt Strassler https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity-space-astronomy-and-cosmology/history-of-the-universe/inflation/
As you can see the inflation probably happened at immense mind boggling rates. This could very easily have separated virtual particle pairs, allowing them to become real, not unlike Hawking radiation being produced by black holes due to the separation of virtual particles.
Edit heres Prof Strassler on Quantum Fluctuations, he highlights a few problems with the energy availble in space from calculations using existing theories. Cosmological constant for instance. https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/quantum-fluctuations-and-their-energy/
Could space time as we know it be emergent and entangled to a certain extent
-
As the gamma ray photon travels through space it is simultaneously a set of virtual particles- electrons and positrons etc.
In the presence of a strong enough magnetic or electric field those virtual particles are forced onto separate tracks and become "real" at the expense of the original photon
-
As the gamma ray photon travels through space it is simultaneously a set of virtual particles- electrons and positrons etc.
In the presence of a strong enough magnetic or electric field those virtual particles are forced onto separate tracks and become "real" at the expense of the original photon
Yes I know this, the first requires the pre existence of the gamma ray, and not being of a religious nature, I don't believe in the beginning there was light. I think it was likely the HUP ;). The second is I guess the Dynamic Casimir Effect and may be the closest thing to conversion of virtual particles to real particles. Some experiments were done in 2013 that claim to have proven the dynamic Casimir effect https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424111/first-observation-of-the-dynamical-casimir-effect/ . Is this what Colin2B might have been talking about?
I am thinking this is as close to proof of particles being able to appear from nothing in the inflationary phase of the universe.
-
In the presence of a strong enough magnetic or electric field those virtual particles are forced onto separate tracks and become "real" at the expense of the original photon
As an amusing aside or twist, I watched something Nicola Tesla last night, which put a thought into my head. I wonder if his huge electric and magnetic fields at Wardenclyffe (to supply power to the world maybe) could have produced real particles from virtual particles, causing some of his reported problems. I vaguely remember something to do with unexpected charges flowing to ground, through his tower or something vague like that. Just a thought :) Did Tesla inadvertently produce real particles from virtual particles without understanding it. Maybe thinking his charge was appearing from the Aether ??